By Alan Levine

After Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched direct peace talks last week, the parties reportedly agreed to work on a framework agreement and meet again in mid-September.

The media and other observers are weighing in as usual, but are too often distracted by the immediate and the trivial.  We hear about the individual leaders, the structure of the negotiations, and of course the Israeli settlement moratorium. But Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts began nearly 20 years ago, yet there appears to be little discussion of the historical trends at play.  That's why it is important that campus activists keep the following Middle Eastern realities in mind.

Israel’s unreciprocated commitment to peace

As has been the case since Israel’s independence in 1948, Israel is once again far more committed to the peace process than any of its neighbors.  In 1947, it was only Israel that accepted the UN’s “partition plan”.  And throughout its history, Israel has been the only side to give up any tangible goods—namely land—for peace.  It did so in 1979, 1993, and 2005.  The current peace effort has also taken place overwhelmingly on one side.  It was Netanyahu who went as far as to commit to the other party’s stated goal—namely the creation of an independent Palestinian state for the first time in history. He has constantly asked his Palestinian interlocuters to negotiate and made the unprecedented pre-concession of freezing all new construction in the disputed Jewish neighborhoods of Judea and Samaria.  Abbas, in contrast, has allowed incitement and glorification of terror while ridiculing the notion of Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

The Palestinian Schism

Palestinian society is geographically and politically divided in two.  Hamas, the Iranian-backed terrorist group that openly and belligerently declares its goal of destroying Israel is the de facto government of the Gaza Strip, while the Western-backed, supposedly moderate Fatah governs in disputed Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank.  It is important to remember that in 2005, the last time Israel withdrew from land it meant to become a Palestinian state, Mahmoud Abbas was removed from that land in a brutal coup by Hamas.  So, the obvious question becomes: assuming that Abbas genuinely wants a peace agreement with Israel, does he have the power to implement the agreement?  He certainly does not have the power in Gaza, and whether he has the power to do so in the West Bank is unclear.

The Risks to Israel

If Israel agrees to withdraw from any disputed land—and certainly if it withdraws to the 1949 armistice lines as so many in the West would like—it would be taking unprecedented risks to its very existence.  Every time Israel has given up land—1993, 2000, 2005, and even 1979—the land has been used by terrorists to attack Israeli civilians.  And if the events described above in Gaza were to repeat themselves in Judea and Samaria, Israel would have an Iranian-backed proxy state lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians in the heart of Israel.  This time, the areas up for negotiation are minutes away from Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel’s only international airport.

While Israelis have always longed for peace and remain prepared to make risky and painful concession for that peace, the world should reserve judgment.  Israel is a democracy in an unprecedentedly risky situation. We will nevertheless see Western politicians, academics, and activists display their usual hubris while trying to tell Israel what to do.  But they should at least recognize that only Israel—the Middle East’s only true democracy—has proven that it is serious about peace.  Israel has earned that reputation and should be supported regardless of whether history is finally made this time around.

Other suggested reading:

"Abbas and Fayad: Do They Have a Mandate?" Khaled Abu Toameh, Hudson New York

“Dividing the Jews' Eternal Capital” Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, New York Post

“Mideast peace talks to look forward to?”  David Makovsky, Washington Post

"Reason for optimism in talks" Michael Oren,  Jerusalem Post

"In the Mideast, the peace process is only a mirrage"  George Will, Washington Post

"Barack Hearts Bibi" Barry Rubin, Gloria Center-IDC Hertzliya