The nature of relations between Israelis and Palestinians is an
important factor in determining the security situation in the
Middle East, and even influences the security of the international
community. The Israeli side, which holds most of the aces when it
comes to determining the nature of these relations, has three
different views of how to shape these relations and determine the
security of the region.
The view of Israel's extreme right is that Israel should hold on to
the Gaza Strip and West Bank territories, not just to ensure
Israel's security, but for historical, national and religious
reasons. According to this view, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
will continue for generations, but its impact can be reduced by
Israel's use of force - the extreme right wants to continue
settlement activity, avoid any negotiations to end the conflict
peacefully and carry out large-scale military activities as part of
a continuous existential war against the Palestinians.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon supported this viewpoint until he
realized that military operations do not achieve their goals. So he
developed another option and threw what amounts to a political bomb
when he announced Israel would unilaterally withdrawal from Gaza.
The details of this dramatic move are not yet clear, as much of its
realization depends on the advice of Israeli security services, the
dynamics of internal politics, US opinion of the plan and the
involvement of the international community. These influencing
forces will eventually shape Sharon's plan. But his refusal to open
negotiations with the Palestinians over this move makes it possible
to guess his motivation. He wants to reduce international pressure,
show the Israeli public that he is making an effort to change the
situation and demonstrate that Palestinians cannot carry out
self-rule. But most of all, he thinks that by withdrawing from
Gaza, Israel will be able to keep large parts of the West Bank.
(The plan implies withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for annexation
of part of the West Bank.)
The plan is fantasy - there is no way to withdraw without at least
indirect coordination with the Palestinians. Moreover, in the
absence of political movement toward a peaceful solution, the move
will not reduce the intensity of the conflict, but may even fuel
its continuation, increasing frustration and anger among the
Palestinians. It is also highly unlikely that the international
community will allow Israel to annex large parts of the West
Bank.
The third approach to dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
assumes that Israeli and regional security can be only assured by
making peace with the Palestinians and agreeing on an historical
compromise that divides the land into two states, more or less
according to the 1967 line. The Geneva Accord and other initiatives
show that Israelis and Palestinians can negotiate and reach
agreements.
Outlining these three approaches demonstrates that ensuring
regional security is not an objective goal, but one that relies
greatly on psychological factors. Dovish Israeli generals
Lipkin-Shahak and Ayalon are no less knowledgeable on security
matters than their hawkish counterparts generals Sharon and
Ya'alon. Proponents of all three approaches have national goals,
they evaluate domestic and international expectations, and develop
their plans. Experience of security, or insecurity, is a
psychological (cognitive-emotional) reaction and as such it is
inseparable from an individual's perception, information processing
and all the factors that influence these processes. Political
leaders make these evaluations and set their national goals
according to their own ideological convictions - they then try to
persuade the public that these views are the right ones.
The difference between the "conflict continuation" generals and
"conflict resolution" generals is in their values and personal
ideology. The former want to see Israel expand, view Palestinians
in delegitimizing terms and adhere to the use of force. Being in
power, this group does all it can to increase the violence. The
assassination of the Sheikh Yassin extends the conflict to
unpredictable spheres that may shatter the region and affect the
security of the rest of the world. The latter group supports the
value of peace and the principle of "two states for two peoples."
It perceives the Palestinians as partners for peace and realizes
that negotiation is the best way to solve the conflict. Only the
last approach promises peace and security to both nations and to
the region. Extremist Israeli and Palestinian leaders exploit the
fear and mistrust engendered by the conflict in order to mobilize
people around their objectionable ideologies. They have succeeded
in creating the present reality of bloodshed, suffering and misery,
by refusing to make the necessary compromises. Their raison d'etre
is the continuing violence, which prevents any move toward conflict
resolution. Joint Palestinian-Israeli initiatives offer a
much-needed ray of hope to the two nations. After three years of
violent struggle, we need to begin the struggle for peace and
regional security - but this will be a peaceful struggle, for the
minds and hearts of the people of both nations.