The election of Donald Trump and his nomination of David
Friedman as Ambassador to Israel portends a new phase in the U.S.-Israel
relationship. During the campaign, President Trump boasted that he will be the
most “pro-Israel” president in history. But what does that mean? In the case of Trump, it appears to mean paying little deference to past efforts at diplomacy and long-standing U.S. policy. Thus, Trump repeatedly criticized the U.S. government’s abstention on UN Security
Council Resolution 2334, which re-affirmed international support for a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemned Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territory as illegal and detrimental to peace. Many of Trump’s advisers and supporters openly questioned the idea of pursuing a two-state solution. The 2016 Republican Party platform eliminated any mention
of a two-state solution. Iowa congressman Steve King (R-IA), an early Trump supporter, said that the two-state solution “has run its course.”
The Israeli right rejoiced at Trump’s election. Naftali
Bennet, leader of the right-wing Jewish Home Party in Israel, stated, “Trump’s
victory is a tremendous opportunity for Israel to immediately announce its
intention to renege on the idea of establishing Palestine in the heart of the
country. . . . The era of the Palestinian state is over.” In recent months, there
has been increasing talk of “Greater Israel” and a one-state solution. At a
joint press conference in Washington earlier this week, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
engaged in verbal somersaults to avoid endorsing a two-state solution.
Netanyahu heaped public praise on Trump and the new direction in U.S.-Israel
relations: “There is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish
state than President Donald Trump."
Trump’s Ambassador-designate to Israel, David Friedman, a
lawyer from Long Island with no foreign policy experience, has long supported
the Israeli settlement movement and annexation of the West Bank. In an article he wrote for Arutz Sheva, he accused President Obama of “blatant anti-Semitism”
and described supporters of the pro-Israel, pro-peace group J Street as “far worse than kapos – Jews who turned in
their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps.” When he was later asked by Jeffrey
Goldberg of The Atlantic to clarify what may be among the vilest statements one
Jew can say of another, Friedman said of liberal Zionists, “They’re not Jewish,
and they’re not pro-Israel.” Although he attempted to tone down these past
statements at his confirmation hearing last week, there is little doubt as to his true
sentiments.
So, what does it mean to be “pro-Israel” in the Age of Trump? Does
it require unquestioning acceptance of the policies of the current Israeli
government (or at least no public criticism)? What about the contrary views of a majority of Israeli citizens?
Should not the term “pro-Israel” be reserved to those who support policies that
are in the long-term interests of Israel, its security, and its status as a
Jewish and democratic state? For those of us who care about the future of the Jewish
state and of liberal Zionism, is it right to worry about where the Trump-Netanyahu alliance is headed? Is there any realistic alternative to a two-state solution?
Before his tragic assassination in 1995 by a right-wing
Jewish extremist, then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin understood that the
visionary ideals of Israel’s Zionist founders, of a free and democratic Jewish
state, remained in constant tension with the more expansionist religious and
nationalistic claims to a Greater Israel. As the first Israeli-born Prime
Minister who had fought for Israel’s survival and performed heroically in
defending Israel during the Six-Day War, Rabin understood that the future of
his beloved country, and of Zionism itself, could not withstand a permanent
military occupation of land populated by millions of Palestinians.
“Israel is no longer a people that dwells alone,” he said in
1992, alluding to the burdens of occupation. Rabin knew that to achieve peace
great leaders must be willing to negotiate and compromise with their enemies.
Even when destructive forces are determined to sabotage the peace process, Rabin
said, “We must think differently, look at things in a different way.”
Rabin set Israel firmly on course to pursuit of a two-state
solution, believing it was the only way to guarantee that Israel remained both Jewish and democratic. It is a framework that continues to be supported by two-thirds of Israeli
Jews, according to a recent poll commissioned by J Street in Israel. The poll,
conducted by a highly respected Israeli pollster on January 8-9, 2017, found that 66% of Israeli
Jews and 68% of Israelis overall continue to support a two-state solution. Even
62% of Likud voters favor a two-state solution. These results should not be surprising. For
those who live in Israel, the complex reality of life on the ground compels
sensitivity to the tenuous nature of the Zionist vision of a Jewish and democratic
state.
The two-state solution is also overwhelmingly endorsed by former leaders of Shin Bet, the Israeli security service, a group of experts who can
hardly be accused of insufficiently understanding Israel’s security needs.
Indeed, it is precisely out of concern for Israel’s long-term security that these
military and intelligence experts support two states for two peoples.
Although Prime Minister Netanyahu has at times paid lip
service to a two-state solution, in eight years he has made no serious effort to
pursue a peaceful solution to the conflict and has repeatedly defied U.S. policy by expanding the number of settlements in the West Bank. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
recently told The Axe Files, Netanyahu is “now the father of one-State Israel;... the Prime Minister of Israel-Palestine.” Friedman (the journalist) noted that the Israeli-right
wants three things: (1) a state that encompasses all the land of Greater Israel (including all or most of the land encompassing East Jerusalem and the West Bank),
(2) a Jewish state, and (3) a democratic state. In reality, given existing demographics and current birth rates, only two of these
choices are achievable. Israel can have all the land of Greater Israel and be
Jewish, but not democratic. Israel can have all the land of Greater Israel and
be democratic, but not Jewish. Or Israel can be Jewish and democratic, but not
have all the land of Greater Israel. These options are clearly delineated and immovable.
As the J Street-Israel poll demonstrates, most Israelis
understand that Israel can remain true to its Jewish and democratic
character only if it seeks a secure Israel within internationally recognized
borders, side-by-side with a demilitarized Palestinian state. Any other
solution is effectively the end of liberal Zionism. To be truly pro-Israel is
to care about the long-term future of the Jewish state and to seek an Israel that permanently preserves its Zionist ideals and democratic
traditions, while respecting the humanity and equality of Palestinians. The two-state solution is the only realistic path to a permanent peace that preserves Israel's Jewish and democratic character. Supporting the two-state solution, as do a majority of Israelis, is the most pro-Israel position one can take.
Admittedly, peace with the Palestinians may be a long way off. The
Palestinians have a lot to do to get their own house in order. They must overcome
incompetent and corrupt leadership, the Fatah-Hamas divide, and continued attempts by Hamas and others to de-legitimize Israel. But Israel's true supporters will continue to insist on policies (including cessation of West Bank settlements) that help preserve a Jewish homeland as a viable
democracy within secure borders. Any resolution other than one that results in Israel and the
Palestinians living side-by-side within internationally recognized borders irreparably undermines a future of peaceful co-existence and of Israel as a democratic homeland of the Jewish people.
I have no confidence that President Trump understands what is truly at stake in all of this. Some of his public comments ("I am looking at two-states or one state... I can live with either one") demonstrate a baffling degree of ignorance. But the question remains: Will Israel remain true to its Jewish and
democratic values as it searches for a solution to its regional conflicts? We
know where the majority of Israelis stand. I only hope that America under
President Trump will remain pro-Israel in the truest sense of that term and not
seek to undermine the majority sentiment of this Jewish and democratic nation.