81
aimed at reaching an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution.
The Arab states will have five most substantial tasks:
a. Provide the political umbrella for negotiations offering
legitimacy to both sides;
b. Engaging in a comprehensive and effective regional effort
to cooperate in joint struggle against incitement and all
forms of terror;
c. Developing with Israel and the Palestinians together a
narrative looking to the future, rather than the past;
d. Assisting the Palestinian leadership and people in their
state-building effort, while offering adequate and fair quid
pro quos to Israel and
e. Working together with Palestine and Israel in order to
develop agreed regional structures in support of stability,
security and socio-economic development in the region.
4. Europe and Germany
It is essential that the European and German leadership and
media will be fully aware of all the various stumbling blocks
referred to above in chapter 2. Accordingly it is of similar
importance to understand that there is no “ready-made”
solution that can be put on paper, hereby solving the conflict
for always and ever.
If Europe and Germany want to play a decisive contributing
role in support of reaching a two-state solution, it will be
necessary to understand and address the sensitivities of
the Israeli public and refer to the deep historical, traditional,
and emotional connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem
and the Land of Israel. It should be stressed that the Jewish
people, as much as the Palestinian people have the right to
self-determination in their homeland, and that any two-state
solution has to be based on the recognition of the right of
the other party.
It is similarly essential to understand that the future of events
in the Middle East have existential ramifications on the
very existence of Israel and its people, as well as for the
maintenance of Europe’s identity and stability, a fact that
necessitates a close, intense and open European-Israeli
strategic dialogue. This dialogue must identify at first possible
damage that can be caused by one side to the other and
define codes of understanding to prevent a lose-lose situation,
being aware that the potential nuisance effect of one side to
the other is very substantial. Conversely, a mutual win-win
approach can and has to be developed, by defining common
interests, and action that reach substantially beyond the
Israel-Palestine conflict. A joint struggle against Islamophobia
and Anti-Semitism appears to be essential, cooperation to
prevent refugees from Africa to reach Europe, coordination
in regard to the flow of energy, cooperation on high-tech,
and other economic stability building action in the Middle
East and elsewhere, as well as committed coordinated
action to struggle against terror and create regional and
intra-regional security structures are part of an agenda that
has to be discussed.
It is also essential to learn from mistakes made in the past.
The outstanding example is the behavior of the international
community during Israel’s disengagement from Gaza. For
peace-building, it was at that time essential to hand over the
non-movable assets of the settlement blocks in Gaza and the
Northern West Bank in an orderly manner to the Palestinian
Authority. During negotiations, Israel’s Vice Prime Minister
Shimon Peres offered a transfer of all assets, with the exception
of synagogues and Jewish cemeteries. The Palestinian side,
represented by Mahmoud Dahlan, rejected the transfer, on
the grounds that settlement construction was illegal and
thus these assets had to be destroyed. The international
community, represented by Mr. James Wolfensohn as the
Quartet Coordinator, instead of rejecting this argument,
obliged Israel to carry out the destruction of these assets.
This was done, in spite of the fact that the argument itself
was faulted; according to the Oslo Agreements Israel has
been given by the PLO and the PA legitimate responsibility
over the settlements, and in Permanent Status Negotiations,
both sides are committed to deal with the settlement issue.
These agreements committed to by both parties, Israel and
the PLO, clearly overrule the legal concept, that settlements
in occupied territories are illegal. Worse, demanding the
destruction of assets in the value of about 4 billion US $,
in effect meant to waste the tax payers money of the donor
countries, who committed larger sums to the Palestinian
Authority. Worse, associating headway in the peace process
with destruction, instead of using the assets as a potential
accelerator of investment and economic development, had
a devastating effect on the narrative of both parties, and the
capability to prepare for further settlement relocation.
Furthermore, the policy, particularly of Sweden, Ireland, Malta
and Slovenia, to a priori accusing Israel of every deadlock is
counter-productive on all accounts. It keeps the Palestinian
and Israeli leadership in a dangerous comfort zone; allowing
the Palestinian leadership to avoid essential political decisions,
and allowing the Israeli leadership to argue that “anyhow,
the world is all against us” (see also above).
Presently Europe, Germany and the other European states,
are fully occupied with internal problems: the challenge to
deal with the flow of refugees and the impact of BREXIT. This
tends to create another problem: to refrain from dealing with
the Israeli-Palestinian issue. This approach may be politically
useful at the moment, however, strategically I would argue
that it is asking for a disaster.
Undoubtedly Europe and Germany should be advised to
intensify the strategic dialogue with Israel on two levels: on
the official political level, as well as on the civil society level.
The international community should seek to understand
what an Israeli proposal and strategy for reaching a two-
state solution can be, on the basis of a sufficient majority in
Israel, and work from there. A dialogue and joint planning
will not prevent misunderstandings, friction and setbacks.
However, refraining from engaging in a strategic dialogue
and planning will undoubtedly provoke disaster.
