The Outcome for Israel and the Palestines

What will the land of Israel (or Land of Palestine if you prefer) look like when the problem between Israel and Palestine is resolved. Who knows? Whatever happens will most likely happen gradually rather than in one gulp. It will take time for the people on each side to trust the other. For the Israelis that means trusting that the Arabs will not make a violent  intifada whenever a glitch occurs in the process (and glitches are bound to occur). For the Arabs it means trusting that Israelis will treat them with respect and will not use the security issue as a cover to allow encroachment on what little land they still have. There are zealots on both sides who have committed crimes (including murder) against the other side. They must be dealt with equally. Israel has at times destroyed the houses of terrorists, thereby punishing the families of terrorists as well as the terrorists themselves. OK if that's what it takes. But by the same token, when zealous Jewish settlers commit crimes against their Arab neighbors on the West Bank, the punishment should be equally harsh. In addition to punishing the criminals themselves, the settlements in which they live should then be reduced in size.
Let me suggest an answer to my above question. Perhaps cantonization temporarily or permanently could provide a possible path. To some extent it already exists. It needs some tweaking to make it more equitable and acceptable to the parties involved. Since Hamas in Gaza and Fatah on the West Bank do not see eye to eye, there would have to be 3 cantons (states) at least temporarily. Israel will have to continue to have the predominant security role for a long time. That will allow trust to build up on the Israeli side, and not having to worry about an expensive defense will help build the economies on the Palestinian sides.
Eventually it could evolve into a situation where Israel complains to the Palestines that they are not contributing enough to the common defense. Wouldn't that be something! I could see cantonization happening sooner with the West Bank Palestine. Gaza would be a harder nut, but a West Bank not responsible for Gaza could progress much faster economically and politically. Eventually the Gazans might realize that they are leaving themselves out of things and force Hamas to soften. Israel has to react to attacks from Gaza with counter-attacks as any nation would do, but it always must be ready to talk with them.
Whatever the outcome, it will be slow and a work in progress, as long as it moves in the right direction.

Israel's Challenge

I am concerned for the people of Israel because 1/3 of the Jewish population in the world live there, and I am concerned for their welfare just as I am concerned for the welfare of all my fellow Jews everywhere. I am less concerned for the shrines and land, and who owns what piece of real estate. Although the history of the Jewish people in ancient Judea certainly explains our interest in the location of the Jewish State, the real justification for Israel's existence is the fact that it exists and has done so for generations.
Herzl's dream was for a normal country at peace with its neighbors. Israel is part of the way there, but there are still challenges to reach that goal. The Palestinian Arabs resent the existence of a predominantly Jewish nation on land that was once predominantly inhabited by Arabic speaking Moslems. The Israelis are scarred by years of intifadas and bombings which made normal life impossible. They see chaos, danger, and war in the surrounding neighborhood, and fear that it would engulf them if they allowed that world into their space.
Both sides have their differences, but they also have common interests (for example economic development for the region). They also have common enemies (for example ISIS and the hardliners in Iran).
So what can the people on the ground (Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians) do to meet their common interests and minimize their differences?

What can the Palestinian Arabs do:
1. Accept the existence of a predominantly Jewish Hebrew speaking state in Israel.
2. Accept the fact that there are 2 separate Palestinian states with separate governments at least for the time being. Fatah on the West Bank can not negotiate for Gaza if it can not control the belligerent actions of Hamas. The separation does not have to be permanent, but they can only be united when they can make a united peace. It is not Israel's responsibility to bring them together.
3. Drop their insistence on the right of return of Palestinian Arabs to Israel. 1948 was 67 years ago. Generations have come and gone. There was a migration of Arabs out from Israel and a migration of Jews into Israel (including a large influx of Jewish refugees from the surrounding Moslem states). A massive immigration of Arabs into Israel could change the character of Israel and destroy Zionism.
4. Stop preaching hatred of Jews and Israel to their children.

What can Israel do?
1. Accept the fact that 1/4 of the population within Israel is not Jewish and most of those non-Jews are Arabs. Arabs and other non-Jews are equal before the law. Some have positions of prominence in the government and private sector. Many are educated and live like other Israelis. But there are problems on a personal level. Many Jewish Israelis do not trust their fellow Arab citizens. So to improve things on a personal level, politicians have to stop playing on those fears (like Netanyahu did before the most recent election). Schools need to promote kinship and tolerance between Jews and Arabs. The Palestinians might actually be partially descendants of Jews who did not leave when Judea was destroyed by the Romans 2000 years ago, but instead stayed and accepted whatever religion came along in order to remain, first paganism, then Christianity, then Islam. Perhaps believing that we are genetically related might bring us more together (maybe not). The more Israeli Arabs are brought into the mainstream of Israel, the more it will strengthen Israel. This is already happening. It needs to be a priority.
2. Settlements on the West Bank need to be curtailed. There are some Jews in and outside of Israel who believe that all of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River (the Land of Israel as opposed to the State of Israel or the Land of Palestine as opposed to the Palestinian Territories) should be Jewish. The radical religious ones believe God said so in the Bible. The others claim the Balfour Declaration. They reality is that things happened as they happened. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are inhabited by our cousins who worship the same God differently and speak a different language. But they live there and do not plan to go away any more than the Jews of Israel plan to go anywhere else. It is too late to create new facts on the ground. To do otherwise will give the Arabs no hope, and without hope conflict will continue.
3. Make the most of present common interests. Iran and ISIS threaten Israel, the Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab nations. Include the Arabs nations and Palestine as much as possible in the economic development and scientific development happening in Israel. This is happening already. It needs to be maximized.
4. Cooperation with Arab leaders and governments is good, but more important is inclusion of the Arab people in Israel, in Palestine, and in the surrounding Arab region in the economic and scientific progress that is happening in Israel. Governments and leaders come and go, but people stay.

The Least Bad Outcome

It looks like the US Government will have barely enough votes in Congress to enable the President to veto a move by Congress to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal. This will probably be the best possible outcome. If Congress were to scuttle the deal, Iran would go ahead and develop nuclear bombs while the other nations in the coalition would feel free to start trading with Iran, effectively breaking the embargo and making a continued pressure by the US almost meaningless. It would put Israel in an even more precarious position. On the other hand by passing the deal by a very narrow margin requiring the President to use his veto power to prevent the deal from being scuttled, it showed the Iranian government how precarious their position is. It forced Secretary Kerry to publicly state how tough we will have to be with Iran and to say publicly that we do not trust their government. It may very well be the least bad of all possible outcomes.

Perusing the Jewish Journal

I had occasion to pick up the latest edition of the Jewish Journal (Los Angeles) today. There were a number of articles about Israel, Jews, Moslems, and the nuclear deal with Iran. The articles had various points of view. One by Gina Nahai pointed out that the Shah of Iran promoted the rights of women while the mullahs (including the supposedly more liberal Rohani) of present day Iran suppress women. I agree, but nonetheless at the moment those are the guys who have the power in Iran and with whom we have to deal. A number of articles opposed the deal to various degrees. Dennis Prager is opposed to the deal and criticized American Jews who support it. David Suissa disagrees with the deal, but is against allowing disagreement to split the Jewish people apart. Rob Eshman points out that not all Israelis are opposed to the deal. A number of Israeli security experts find it a good deal. My opinion is that it is not a good deal but it is the possible deal, and there is no better alternative. The brightest article in the Journal was one by Haissam Hassanein, a Moslem Egyptian-American student at Tel Aviv University. After hearing bad stuff about Israel before going there, he found Israelis to be a diverse normal friendly people of various religions and opinions. Promoting this sort of image of Israel in the Middle East may very well be the solution to achieving Herzl's dream.

Who is Netanyahu and Who are We Jews?

Recently on the Fareed Zakharia show, Thomas Friedman was interviewed. He pointed out that that despite Netanhyahu's bluster, he has actually acted in a cautious manner. So who is Netanyahu? He talks like a war monger but does not act like one. I think Netanyahu's problem is that he is a politician more than a statesman. that is why he has such difficulty with President Obama who is a statesman more than a politician. But it also brings into question who are we as Jews and who are the people of Israel? After all a political leader in a democracy is elected by the people. Many of the military and intelligence leaders in Israel have spoken more dovishly than Netanyahu because they do not have to be elected and therefore can say what is real. Netanyahu has to pander to the mob and actually can stir up fear in the mob when it is needed to get elected. When the election is over he then regains his sanity. The Jewish people have had much to fear during the last 2 millennia since the end of the Kingdom of Judah. The people of Israel are particularly exposed and therefore willing to follow a demagogue like Netanyahu when it suites his purpose to be one. We Jews in the diaspora as well as in Israel have more than our share of intelligent people and people who do good for the world, but we also have our mishegooyim (maybe more than our share). We are the product of our history which was molded by the Christian and Moslem world.

Edry

Congratulations to Ronny Edry. He is the Israeli who used social media to reach out to ordinary Iranians to say that Israel loves Iran and received a similar response from ordinary Iranians. Of course Israel must maintain a strong military power, but people liked Edry will eventually win Herzl's dream of a secure Israel at peace with its neighbors, not Netanyahu's bluster.

The Nuclear Deal with Iran

So the US and the major nations have made a deal with Iran to curtail Iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb in return for decreasing the economic sanctions on Iran. The opponents of the treaty, say Iran can't be trusted to keep their part of the bargain. On the other hand it does include safeguards. It's not that it's a wonderful deal, but it's the least bad of the options. The Republicans who oppose the treaty are not necessarily doing a bad thing. I think they might actually have helped the Obama administration reach the best deal they could accomplish by letting the Iranian hard liners know that the president could not make a bad deal even if he wanted to (which he didn't). The reality is that the problems are complex. We are at odds with Iran as well as their clients like Bashir Assad and Hezbollah. But we are also their sort of allies against ISIS. Iran is the enemy of our allies, both Israel and its Arab neighbors. A nuclear Iran would stimulate some of the Arab countries to respond by trying to develop their own nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Pandora's box opened 70 years ago with the unveiling of the first atomic bombs. The salvation of the world won't come from only military power or from only treaties either. Getting the people of the world (not just governments) to get along, to solve problems of poverty, food and other necessities, and getting religions to tolerate each other are all parts of the solution. Technology that deters offensive weapons instead of creating more offensive weapons will help. In other words mostly common sense.