Michael Sharnoff: Alternative Solutions to Palestinian Unilateralism

This is not an unrealistic scenario given that Palestinians have previously launched two devastating intifadas against Israel (1987-1993 and 2000-2005).  In March 2011, a Facebook page advocating a third intifada received over 40,000 signatures; some activists have called for peaceful protests against Israel while others have advocated the killing of Jews and Israel’s elimination. Facebook has since removed the page on the grounds that it promoted violence, but dozens of mirror group pages have surfaced with tens of thousands of members. This scenario would place Washington in an untenable situation.  An Israeli crackdown against protestors would be denounced internationally, and would make it difficult for the US to side with its long-time ally.  It would be hypocritical for the US to support the aspirations of the people in the Middle East except the Palestinians.  However, openly supporting Palestinian demands would undermine its relationship with Israel, and remaining neutral risks the possibility of backfiring by upsetting both sides. For Israel, such a scenario would be a lose-lose situation.  If Israel, confronted by thousands of unarmed, peaceful demonstrators, used force, it would be condemned internationally and risk facing charges of crimes against humanity.  If Israel yielded to protestor demands, the government would be perceived as weak, and Palestinians might receive certain concessions without any security considerations for Israel. What are the Alternatives? In light of these realities, the prospect of reaching a comprehensive agreement which affects both the West Bank and Gaza Strip seems remote.  The United States cannot effectively advance the two-state solution under current conditions, but it also cannot extricate itself completely from the peace process without risking a renewal of violence. Therefore, the US is left with limited options. Perhaps the most realistic option under the current circumstances would be for Washington to convince Israel and the Palestinian Authority to negotiate a bilateral agreement affecting Israel and the West Bank.  There is real incentive to reward Abbas and Fayyad’s West Bank government, which has improved security, built institutions and enjoyed economic growth in the past decade.  A negotiated settlement loosely based along the West Bank borders with agreed upon land swaps could serve as an interim Palestinian state with genuine Palestinian independence and all that it entails – a capital, a sovereign judicial system, UN membership, and most importantly – pride.  The US and the West would reward this pragmatic move with massive economic assistance. The UN could work with Israel and the Palestinians to monitor such an agreement and allow an agreed upon time frame after the formation of a West Bank Palestinian state to determine whether similar conditions would be applicable for the Gaza Strip. As long as Hamas refuses to accept the notion of a Palestine living in peace alongside Israel, continues abducting Israeli soldiers, and firing rockets, Israel should adopt new ways of convincing its leadership to moderate its policies.  A West Bank-first approach could persuade Hamas that moderation does pay and if that does not work, there is a strong chance Gazans, who are technologically connected to events in the West Bank and neighboring countries, would demand that their leaders accept the West Bank model of moderation and pragmatism.  In such a rapidly changing Middle East where dictators have either fled or been murdered by their people -scenarios virtually unthinkable just one year ago – the same fate could be brought to Hamas leaders if they fail to deliver real change and realistic aspirations to their people. The current situation on the ground prevents the implementation of a two-state reality.  Likewise, abandoning the peace process altogether poses the possibility of further turmoil, which would be disastrous for all sides.  Therefore, to prevent an outbreak of violence if the UN bid fails, the US should work with Israel by promoting a West Bank-first approach.  This would help stabilize the region by strengthening Palestinian moderates who seek to live alongside Israel in permanent peace.  It would also pressure Hamas to abandon violence and radicalism after Gazans begin demanding that they, like West Bankers, deserve tranquility and independence. Michael Sharnoff is a Ph.D. candidate in Middle East Studies at King’s College, London. His research focuses on Egyptian perceptions of peace after the 1967 War. This article has been reprinted with the permission of Middle East Insights.