by david naggar
When I was an active litigator, I kept in mind what decent lawyers know: If someone sues your client, it is generally advisable to sue back.
With a countersuit in place, the dynamics of the negotiation changes. Each side may be owed something, and advocates and peacemakers alike must take this into account when proposing a settlement.
As of yet, Israel’s advocates have not presented a credible countersuit against those who demand that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. No one has effectively put forth a case that Israel, to be a self-sustaining, viable state, must have adequate territory, and that a self-sustaining viable Israel not only serves the interests of peace, but also greatly benefits humanity otherwise. A more balanced negotiation and a more enduring peace between Israel and her neighbors will arise from advancing this case. Only by laying out this argument will Israel’s full needs be taken into account when the time comes to set regional borders.
Today, only Palestinian statelessness and Israel’s security needs are discussed. Israel’s need to be viable has not been considered by the international community since 1920, when the much larger original borders of what was to become British Mandate Palestine — a homeland for the Jews — were agreed upon.
The international consensus solution, two states — one Israeli, one Palestinian, within the confines of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank — is based on fatally flawed assumptions. Even if two such states could be delineated by fiat, doing so would not produce a lasting peace. Neither state would be viable.
And with ever-advancing technology and ever-more-powerful arsenals, it should be clear that failure to achieve true peace may eventually lead to a much wider and more lethal war.
Therefore, the assumptions underlying these international proposals must be revisited. The problem must be considered anew. A better approach to a sustainable peace must be found and pursued.
World leaders must first be educated to the improbability of establishing a successful Palestinian state in the limited space allocated to it. A RAND Corporation study suggests that to have even a chance of success, such a Palestinian state would require $33 billion of aid over 10 years, $50 billion of aid through 2019, and access to Israel’s labor market. This approach is fantasy. Pursuing it will endanger the lives of some and ruin the lives of many.
World leaders must also be re-educated to the fact that Israel’s primary predicament — its security risk — is based on the long-standing Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict, not an Israeli-Palestinian one. In other words, the establishment of a tiny Palestinian state by itself won’t end Israel’s security risk. Iranian and Hezbollah actions are helping to make this point clear.
Less appreciated is that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to power in Egypt and Syria if there were fair elections held in those countries today.
Finally, world leaders must then be persuaded to give weight to the fact that security is not Israel’s only predicament. Israel may have the nuclear weapons capability to blow up many who hate it, but to exist as a healthy nation — to be a viable state — Israel’s security and well-being, including social, political and economic needs, must be unassailable.
Viability is hard to precisely define. It is a concept that is best examined holistically because each state has its own unique circumstances.
In its pre-1967 borders, Israel’s long-term viability is suspect because 1) it is not self-reliant, needing to be annually subsidized by American foreign aid and the monetary support of diaspora Jews; 2) it does not have adequate water or energy resources, needing to import both; 3) the quality of life of its citizens is brutal below the surface, notwithstanding the availability of material goods made possible by a subsidized economy. Israelis live in a pressure cooker imposed by its enemies, one that takes an unhealthy emotional toll; 4) it does not have adequate territory to allow for natural population growth; 5) it does not have permeable borders to support economic activity. It faces unfriendly neighbors, and must bypass its neighbors to openly trade; and 6) it faces borders that cannot be easily secured because it does not have adequate territory to properly defend those borders.
As the only Jewish majority state, it is necessary that Israel be viable in every sense. In the long-term, only an independently viable Israel can peacefully and successfully survive in the Middle East.
Moreover, it is in humanity’s interest that the Jewish people participate in the organization of civilization as an equal partner. The one Jewish majority state must be large enough to enable it to grow and thrive, not wither and decay. Because Israel exists, Jews around the world can more freely and openly do their part. It is astonishing that a people making up less than .2 percent of the world’s population has produced 22 percent of all Nobel laureates. In the fields of philanthropy, the humanities, science, the arts, medicine, Internet connectivity, global communications, coming water shortage issues, energy issues and more, a self sufficient, prosperous, and free Israel benefits humanity.
For the sake of Israelis and Arabs, lasting peace and the betterment of humanity, the failed status quo must change. Israel must exist on a plot of land large enough for it to be self-reliant.
Palestinian Arabs must also either have their own plot of land large enough to create a viable state, or they must be afforded the opportunity to achieve full self-determination as citizens of other Arab states.
David Naggar is a Bay Area attorney and businessman, and author of “The Case for a Larger Israel.”
CopyrightJ, the Jewish news weekly of Northern California