Israel Votes to Reject a Palestinian State

I just woke up to the news that Israel’s Knesset passed a resolution to oppose a Palestinian State 68-9.  Undoubtedly, proponents and opponents will make their voices heard, intensely so, but they are prone to distort it, and will. 

First, the resolution should be read for what it says, carefully.  Second, the “overwhelming” vote also means that 43 Knesset members did not vote for it, nor could they vote against it.  Had I been an MK, I might have voted for it or I might have not voted — as I will explain.  

Third, this vote comes during a time when Hamas massacred more than 1,200 Israelis on a single day, took hundreds of hostages, and still holds many of them.  Moreover, the more formidable forces of Hizbollah still pose an even graver threat.  But to the political point, amidst Israel’s suffering and the threat of more, many nations have taken this moment to express support for a Palestinian State.  Ignore a people’s unjustified suffering and they will turn away.  The regimes of the world, as much as anything else, influenced this vote. 

My own view has long been that Israel should never give up on peace and that is Torah teaching.  Still, the pursuit of peace cannot be only of fluffy dreams, fantasies; peace cannot take root without dealing with the main issues.  

Israel, in my view, as well as Jews, all Zioninsts, and people of goodwill should avoid both extremes — rejecting peace and setting impossible conditions, nor should they ideologically and mindlessly call for peace at any price.  Three conditions from Palestinian supporters could lead to peace and render today’s resolution an asterisk in history.

First, the Arab world must reject the idea that Jews have no right to their homeland and that “Jews stole Palestinian land.”  They must teach Jewish history in Israel — in Biblical times and in centuries before and after the common era — from a Jewish point of view.  This does not mean whitewashing any improper act by Jews or by the State of Israel, but it means understanding the full picture and context.  It therefore also means Arabs taking responsibility for their history of rejection, antisemitism, treatment of Jews in their lands, and more.  

If one side claims its right to exist and the other claims there is no justification for it, the conflict is intractable.  Those who advocate for peace in the region cannot have it both ways, unless they mean Israel should go away.  When “peace” means Israel’s destruction as a Jewish state, one way or the other — it is hollow, meaningless, and a mere weapon against Jews.  We will not commit nation suicide.  I will add, Israeli curriculums must teach Arab history in the region as well.  Without historical understanding, there will be no peace.

The second, which would naturally flow from the first, is the renunciation of armed action against Jews and the delegitimization of Israel, in Israel and throughout the world.  No country will agree to peace when the other side advocates, plans, and executes terrorism and war.  This also means turning from celebrating attacks on innocent civilians (military targets are different).  

Last, this process must take at least a generation.  Attitudes do not change overnight.  Israelis will need to feel secure that Jewish history is understood and that the armed struggle is truly over — not merely words on paper.  Admittedly, others are impatient, feeling it has been long enough — but my interest is genuine peace, and if the steps proceed in earnest, peace will follow, Palestinian suffering will diminish, lives will improve, even before any Palestinian State. 

If these conditions are met, most Israelis, and certain Jews and people of goodwill, could accept a Palestinian State.  Some border adjustments would be necessary, but much work has been done already.  To be sure, some Jews would still oppose any Palestinian State, but that’s not how a democracy works.  Indeed, if these conditions were met, the vote in the Knesset would be far more overwhelmingly in support than 68-9. 

Finally, today’s resolution is a product of Israel’s democracy.  It means on another day that same democracy may vote otherwise.  We ought not jump to hard conclusions, though others will use it for anti-Israel fodder.  Still, in Israel, and in the US, citizens are deploying “democracy” as a political weapon.  Again, one can’t have it both ways.  If you believe in democracy, then at times decisions, even major votes, will not go your way.  If you reject democracy when you disagree with its vote, then you really don’t believe in democracy at all. 

I accept Israel’s democratic decision today even as I hope for a better tomorrow.