The Demand that Hamas Should Make—But Won’t
Now that there is a cease-free in Gaza that is holding (for the moment), each side is preparing their list of demands for a negotiated “peace.” At a minimum, Israel wants a demilitarized Hamas, and Hamas wants release of import restrictions to Gaza. Both of these demands are reasonable. We’ll see how far they get. No matter what sort of an agreement is reached, it is unlikely to address the fundamental issue of the creation of some sort of Palestinian state where its citizens enjoy full rights.
Netanyahu has recently made plain he has no interest in a two-state solution, and given the strength of the settler movement, the status quo will not be changed by Israel.
So someone else must make the first move. Hamas are the players of the moment, so it’s in their court. What should they do? If Hamas really wanted to change things, they would propose the following: that Gaza be made part of Israel and that elections be held so that representatives from Gaza could sit in the Knesset. Such representatives could be members of a demilitarized Hamas, but should have no past direct connection with violent acts against Israel (a tall order perhaps, but necessary). The 1.8 million residents of Gaza would become Israeli citizens.
This simple demand would inevitably force Israelis to focus on the unmentionable 800-lb gorilla in the room: the idea that Israel must be a “Jewish state.” Everyone has an opinion on this, but there has never been a single operating legal definition. It is time to have one. And such a debate—an open, nation-wide debate on what the term “Jewish state” means—may be crucial for the survival of Israel itself, for it is plain that internal divisions are pushing Israelis toward potentially violent confrontations between left and right, mostly over the issue of the West Bank settlements.
There will be resistance to this, because it is fairly self-evident that the insistence on a permanent, legislated ethnic/religious majority (be it Jewish, Sunni, Shia, or what have you) is incompatible with modern notions of human rights. The examples are well known and all too numerous. But it must happen.
Though this debate would be uncomfortable, it would be cathartic for Israelis—in a positive way. Israelis, not outsiders, would be the ones defining themselves (no doubt there would be lots of input from all sides, but that is a positive as well). They would have an opportunity to declare specifically what they stand for as a nation.
But the best way to bring this about is if the Palestinians ask for it—if they show they want to be part of a state where all citizens have equal rights under the law, instead of this polarized, violent limbo that exists now.
Too bad they won’t.
Netanyahu has recently made plain he has no interest in a two-state solution, and given the strength of the settler movement, the status quo will not be changed by Israel.
So someone else must make the first move. Hamas are the players of the moment, so it’s in their court. What should they do? If Hamas really wanted to change things, they would propose the following: that Gaza be made part of Israel and that elections be held so that representatives from Gaza could sit in the Knesset. Such representatives could be members of a demilitarized Hamas, but should have no past direct connection with violent acts against Israel (a tall order perhaps, but necessary). The 1.8 million residents of Gaza would become Israeli citizens.
This simple demand would inevitably force Israelis to focus on the unmentionable 800-lb gorilla in the room: the idea that Israel must be a “Jewish state.” Everyone has an opinion on this, but there has never been a single operating legal definition. It is time to have one. And such a debate—an open, nation-wide debate on what the term “Jewish state” means—may be crucial for the survival of Israel itself, for it is plain that internal divisions are pushing Israelis toward potentially violent confrontations between left and right, mostly over the issue of the West Bank settlements.
There will be resistance to this, because it is fairly self-evident that the insistence on a permanent, legislated ethnic/religious majority (be it Jewish, Sunni, Shia, or what have you) is incompatible with modern notions of human rights. The examples are well known and all too numerous. But it must happen.
Though this debate would be uncomfortable, it would be cathartic for Israelis—in a positive way. Israelis, not outsiders, would be the ones defining themselves (no doubt there would be lots of input from all sides, but that is a positive as well). They would have an opportunity to declare specifically what they stand for as a nation.
But the best way to bring this about is if the Palestinians ask for it—if they show they want to be part of a state where all citizens have equal rights under the law, instead of this polarized, violent limbo that exists now.
Too bad they won’t.
No comments have been added yet.
