Judging the Status Quo

"Main Party in Israeli Coalition Set to Pick Leader," A16, Wednesday, 9/17/08
By Ethan Bronner

Bronner writes a generally informative article on the eve of the Kadima primary. Nevertheless, his article has some significant mischaracterizations.

The author writes that Ariel Sharon originally formed Kadima because he "became convinced that the only way for Israel to maintain its status as a Jewish state was to end its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank." I don't think this is an accurate description of Sharon's plan. Yes, he recognized the demographic and security difficulties in continuing Israel military and civil control over parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

Those issues, however, were only part of the equation. Sharon resorted to unilateralism because he believed that there was no partner with which he could conduct negotiations. It wasn't that Sharon suddenly realized the dangers the occupation posed but that the only way Israel could move forward was unilaterally. Israel had to in a sense "set its own borders" because the PA had shown itself ineffectual and unwilling to compromise.

Another point I would dispute is Bronner's description of the left-right divide in Israeli politics: "In Israel, left is distinguished from right largely by the amount of land one is willing to yield in the name of peace with the Arab world. The more one wants to give up, the farther to the left one is said to be."

That is a terribly shallow way to describe the Israeli political continuum. It all comes down to whether Israel should part with 84 percent of the West Bank or 96 percent? It's all about territory? I think it might be more accurate to describe the divide based on how Israelis view the nature of negotiations with the Palestinians.

The mainstream "left" (Labor) and "right" (Likud) is committed to the two-state solution. The left believes the status quo ("occupation") cannot be maintained and must be altered by arriving at a peace agreement as soon as reasonably possible. On the other hand, the right believes the status quo to be tenable for the time being and does not need to be quickly altered through a rushed agreement with the Palestinian leadership.

This is a more accurate way of understanding the left-right divide than simply the percentage of the disputed territories the Israeli parties are willing to cede to the Palestinians. And anyways, the Palestinian leadership has shown that it is not content with any sort of compromise on this issue (only the "1967 borders" will suffice), so it really makes the point moot. This is not simply a struggle for territory but a fundamental struggle over the right of Jews to live in their historical homeland. The Palestinians have not yet conceded that right and before that occurs, it will probably matter very little how much land Israel is willing to cede.