Following the publication of his book, all about the origin of the Palestinian refugee problem, Professor Benny Morris was crowned one of the most prominent "New Historians" (a group of Israeli historians who challenged traditional versions of Israeli history, including Israel's role in the Palestinian exodus in 1948 and Arab willingness to discuss peace). His title stemmed from his rejection of the accepted Zionist arguments as to what caused the refugee problem, and his exposure of our ugly role in the planned expulsion of some of the refugees. He laid the blame for their dismal situation on fledgling Israel immediately following its establishment. Now that he has "recanted" and changed his views, he has become the darling of the Right. It was not enough for him to present history through his newfound perspective, which presumes that it was the Palestinians who sabotaged any chance of peace, he went one step further and prophesied that peace with the Palestinians is impossible. I reject Morris's analysis, and I believe that he is wrong and that his arguments on the diplomatic developments between Israel and the Palestinians over the last 20 years are misleading. But as long as Israel fails to actually put the Palestinians to the test, a test of their true willingness to reach a permanent agreement on the basis of the Geneva Initiative or similar parameters, I cannot be certain that I am right. As someone who is extremely worried about the day when there are more Palestinians than Jews living west of the Jordan River, I must ask myself the obvious question: What if Benny Morris is right? Let's assume that he is right, let's assume that Mitt Romney is right, let's assume that many right-wing Israelis are right, and that even the current, pragmatic, Palestinian leadership, the one that rejects violence, isn't interested in a two-state solution, and is merely paying lip service to peace. Israel's settler leaders have been trying to bring back the slogan: "Jordan is Palestine." You know: There is a Palestinian majority in Jordan, the king there is weak, they can stage a coup and voila, you have a Palestinian state. Israel can annex the West Bank and the Palestinians living there can vote for the Jordanian parliament. But anyone living in this country who sees Jordan as an important, sane, neighbor, has to ask himself what he would do if there really is "no partner." The obvious answer is to continue what former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began unilateral withdrawal to beyond a certain line in the West Bank. Sharon himself drew this line, which eventually became the "separation fence" or "separation wall" without a bilateral agreement, without any international commitment, without demilitarization and without any call to implement the 2002 Saudi initiative, which involves the establishment of Arab embassies in Israel. Such a solution would solve our demographic problem, but will not ensure our safety. Personally, I would make an enormous effort to strike a bilateral peace agreement, with the aim of making Israel an integral part of the region. But if it turns out that there is, in fact, no Palestinian partner for peace, I would support the unilateral approach just to preserve the Jewish state. One thing really is impossible: assuming that the Palestinians don't want peace and rolling the ball into someone else's court. Anyone who thinks that Morris is right has to ask himself what he is going to do tomorrow, rather than sitting idly by.
What if Benny Morris is right?
מערכת היום
מערכת "היום“ מפיקה ומעדכנת תכנים חדשותיים, מבזקים ופרשנויות לאורך כל שעות היממה. התוכן נערך בקפדנות, נבדק עובדתית ומוגש לציבור מתוך האמונה שהקוראים ראויים לעיתונות טובה יותר - אמינה, אובייקטיבית ועניינית.
