In September 1995, Israel and the Palestinians signed a treaty known as Oslo II. It divided the West Bank into three zones: an “A” zone controlled by the Palestinians; a “B” zone controlled by both sides; and a “C” zone controlled by Israel. The most right-wing position in Israel today is that of the Jewish Home Party, which argues for permanent Israeli control of the “C” zone. There are only about 50,000-75,000 Palestinians living in the “C” zone. The Jewish Home argues for giving them citizenship.
This outcome would not leave much for the Palestinians. The “C” zone covers about 62 percent of the West Bank. And the remaining 38 percent would be a checkerboard of Palestinian cantons. Many Israeli military officers oppose the plan because it would leave the country with hundreds of miles of zigzagging borders to defend and force the Treasury to invest billions on bypass roads. That is why the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public disagrees with the Jewish Home Party on this issue.
The more mainstream right-wing position argues for a two-state solution with Israel holding on to the 7 percent of the West Bank that contains the settlement blocs, as well as another 15-20 percent in the Jordan Valley. This would leave few if any Palestinians under Israeli control, and all of them would be offered citizenship. Incidentally, Yitzhak Rabin’s aides have all asserted that this was the most he would have offered had he not been assassinated.
And why is this so unreasonable? Friedman doesn’t say. When you consider that Jews lived in the West Bank for thousands of years, the idea of territorial compromise certainly doesn’t seem unreasonable. If the conflict involved any party other than Israel, it is fair to say that compromise would be taken as a given.
Here again, I would have no problem with a reporter or pundit who comes down in favor of Israel receiving none of the land, even those portions that belonged to Jews prior to 1948. I wouldn’t agree with him, of course. But at least it’s an honest position. What I can’t concede is the honesty of someone who argues against “apartheid,” knowing full well that no one on the other side argues in its favor. This represents nothing more than the sleazy tactic of arguing against a straw man: twisting your opponent’s position to its wildest extreme and then arguing against the extreme.
* * * * *
All of which brings us to the other great theme in Friedman’s writings: the notion that the settlements are eliminating any chance for peace. Here’s a good recent example, from his April 16, 2014 column:
“There are now 350,000 Jews living in the West Bank. It took 50,000 Israeli police and soldiers to remove 8,000 settlers from Gaza, who barely resisted. I fear the lift in the West Bank to make peace there is now too heavy for conventional politics and diplomacy.”
Here is another, from his March 24, 2013 column: “With nearly 600,000 Israelis now living in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the window for a two state solution is slowly vanishing from the earth.”
Now, let us briefly review all of the facts Friedman had to ignore to justify his “fear.”
For starters, the settlements have never prevented a single peace deal. The settlements in Sinai were dismantled, as were the ones in Gaza.
The settlements didn’t prevent peace with Syria because between 1992 and 2009 every Israeli prime minister with the exception of Ariel Sharon agreed to trade the Golan Heights for a peace treaty. Peace didn’t happen. But that’s because the Syrians turned down the deal.
