Building an alliance towards the historic compromise

By Ziad Asali

A consensus about the contours of a genuine and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians is well known. Its essential elements have been expressed in Clinton's Taba proposal, the Geneva and Nusseibeh-Ayalon plans, and the roadmap. Surveys of Palestinians, Israelis, American Jews and Arabs indicate support for a two-state solution. However, an opposing minority in each camp has exercised its power predictably and effectively to thwart the will of the majorities.

These forces are opposed to peace because they think time is on their side. The Israeli opposition, whether national or religious, believes that if Israel hangs tough, it will in time rule the whole land of Palestine without significant challenge. The Palestinian and Arab opposition, whether national or religious, believes that Israel is just another Crusader state that will vanish in time.

The truth is that Palestinians struggling alone are unlikely to achieve a state in Palestine no matter how steadfast, or even wise, they are. With only the support of the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Palestinians have been, and probably will be, unable to achieve independence.

Israelis have to make a choice between working together in a serious way with the Palestinians, the majority of whom are anxious to negotiate an end to occupation on reasonable terms, or to dash the hope of the Palestinians for a state and simply hope for a less troubled future. Should the compromise fail, it is hard to see how Israel can escape a looming confrontation for the balance of the century with over a billion Muslims clamouring for the liberation of Jerusalem.

The status quo is clearly painful and untenable for both sides. Even if Israel were to fully implement a Gaza disengagement plan, the fundamental elements of the conflict would remain unresolved and a solution based on two viable states would still be the fundamental requirement for peace.

An alliance of Palestinians and significant segments of Israeli society, working in tandem with Arab Americans and American Jews, all committed to the grand compromise, can form the core of the coalition needed to produce positive movement. The existing global consensus for peace should help empower this alliance to achieve its objective.

American politics are based on building alliances. They are pluralistic. No single party or group is powerful enough to achieve its objectives on its own. Single-issue coalitions are forged between groups pursuing a defined objective that they have in common, regardless of their other strategies, ideologies or even competing interests.

The alliance that traditional Zionists have forged over decades is astounding in its breadth and depth. Centring on support for Israel, it consists of groups as varied as the Republican and Democratic parties, labour unions and chambers of commerce, Christian fundamentalists and white liberals, black leaders and conservative southerners, as well as a legion of voices in liberal and conservative media outlets. This coalition is one of the most successful convergences of strange bedfellows that have ever been assembled.

A cursory look around the United States reveals wide support for a two-state solution among the majority of American Jews, Arab Americans, especially Palestinians, the moderate wing of the Republican Party, and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the public at large, academia, mainstream churches and many ethnic groups with an emerging voice of support in the media. Yet, until now, no thread ties these groups together around this issue.

Indeed, gatherings of what ought to be the core constituents of such an alliance - like-minded Jewish, and Arab or Palestinian Americans - more often than not reveal vast psychological and emotional divisions separating them. Human bonds are rarely created, and tribal ties prove more solid than reasoned strategies. Real, no-nonsense, business-like communication has yet to evolve. In the meantime, calm and rational public discourse is stifled by passionate voices of recrimination and paranoia.

The two communities must endeavour to search for answers together rather than to score debating points.

The coalition we seek can only work if it is perceived to serve the interest of each group as it defines it for itself. Different constituencies - both in the Middle East and in the United States, and on both the left and right wings - might, for diametrically opposed reasons, agree on the desirability of a two-state solution. In fact, and whether they recognise it yet or not, this agreement alone makes them important potential allies.

There is a further basis on which Jewish-Americans and Arab-Americans can unite in support of conflict resolution: as loyal Americans. Every serious observer of anti-American fanaticism has recognised that no step would be more powerful in diminishing its appeal than a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. United States has much to gain in terms of promoting its values, economic interests and status as a world leader from such a resolution, and our interests suffer substantially from the failure to end this most long-running and damaging of conflicts.

Those who are serious about achieving a solution of Palestine-alongside-Israel will have to forge the coalition that can make it happen. At its core must be a self-respecting, dependable relationship among like-minded people in Palestine and Israel and in the United States. Anti-Semitism and anti-Islamism are poisonous and to be avoided as such.

It is our obligation to confront all these ills through a working bond of brave people committed to building an alliance for a genuine and lasting peace.

The writer is president of the Washington-based American Task Force on Palestine. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

This article was published in the Sunday, November 7, 2004 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.