Ferry de Kerckhove is right to deplore the return of Benyamin Netanyahu (unsavory character) at the head of a far-right coalition (even less recommendable than him). However, it seems to me that his point is somewhat unequivocal. Not that Israel’s policies are justified (they are not), but Mr. de Kerckhove is wrong to put all the blame on Israel. A condemnation, however well-deserved, of this country must nevertheless remain rigorous.
It was not only in 2001 and 2008 that a peace plan proposing the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders was proposed to the two parties. As former US Secretary of State John Kerry points out in his memoirs, in 2014 a peace plan providing for the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders was seriously discussed (two versions were presented: the first to the mid-February by Kerry and the second in mid-March by President Barack Obama himself).
Unfortunately, and against all odds, it was Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas who said no a doubt as to its sudden and ephemeral flexibility).
Mr de Kerckhove also seems to accept the idea that it was a lack of time or Israeli political instability that caused the failure of the negotiations in 2000-2001 and in 2008. However, almost all the Palestinian negotiators recognize today that they reject the “Clinton parameters” of December 2000 which provided for the creation of a Palestinian State on more than 97% of the occupied territories, with compensation for the remaining 3% (Ahmed Qurei, Akram Haniyeh, Ahmad Khalidi, Hussein Agha or Diana Buttu, to name a few).
The idea that political instability in Israel (such as the indictment of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008) justified Palestinian rejection of the peace plans presented at the time is difficult to defend, especially that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas lost his own parliamentary majority in 2006, which also prevents him from concluding any peace agreement without triggering new elections (not to mention the fact that he lost control of Gaza in 2007 and his presidential term ended in 2009).
With or without a stable government, as much in Israel as in Palestine, it would have been necessary to trigger new elections or a summary procedure to have a peace plan approved (unless one wanted to take the risk of a civil war).
Unfortunately, like the Israelis, the Palestinians reject the idea of two states within the 1967 borders as a definitive solution to the conflict. They always insist on the recognition of a real and individual right of return for all Palestinian refugees within the Jewish state. Admittedly, the Palestinian Authority claims to be very flexible with regard to the application of this right, but in the event of the recognition of a real right of return, nothing would prevent refugees from seizing international tribunals and winning their case, thus relaunching the conflict by indirect means.
More and more former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators (Yair Hirschfeld, Hussein Agha or even Gilead Sher) are now advocating a partial agreement on the borders, which would leave the question of refugees and holy places in the old city of Jerusalem unresolved. After all, the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland did not put an end to the conflict between Catholics and Protestants, but nevertheless allowed them to live together peacefully for already a quarter of a century.
However, on the substance, Ferry de Kerckhove is right. Israel is sinking into irredentism, racism and segregation. Little wonder that the living forces of this country are now seeking exile.
It would nevertheless be relatively simple to bring down Netanyahu: an alliance between the center left and the Arab parties would knock him out. However, half of the Arab electorate continues to boycott the elections and the Jewish moderate parties refuse to give them satisfaction in order to reverse the trend (by recognizing the multinational character of Israel, for example, rather than confining the Palestinians to Israel as a national minority within a “Jewish and democratic” state). Perhaps after four years of extreme right in power will they succeed in overcoming their egos?
Then will come the time to design a new way for the two peoples to live together. There is also a question of confederation with open borders (echoing the sovereignty-association that the Parti Québécois of René Lévesque once advocated). New models are needed, because obviously neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians seem willing to accept a final and irrevocable territorial compromise, which would close the door to any future claims.
As Tom Segev, one of Israel’s leading “new historians”, who has challenged the founding myths of this country, has already pointed out, the identity of the two peoples is too closely linked to this territory (in its entirety) to that they agree to have part of it amputated. One can however doubt that this tragic conflict which opposes two legitimacies (a people who had no other choice but to settle on this land to survive and another who did not intend to settle down to settle a problem which was not not his) will end in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, as Euripides said: “Love of self comes before love of neighbor for everyone. »