18.06.2010

 

Earlier this month, Ami Ayalon, former commander-in-chief of the Israeli Navy and head for several years of the Shin Bet (Israel’s Secret Service), spoke at a luncheon event in Boston, only a few days, by happenstance, after the Gaza flotilla disaster. An avid advocate for “two states for two peoples,” he was accompanied by Jeremy Ben-Ami, director of J Street. Ayalon advocated passionately for new, non-military approaches to the intractable Israeli-Arab conflict, stressing the need in Israel to shift from a paradigm of blame to one of responsibility (as in, rather than point fingers and rue the absence of a Palestinian partner for peace, take responsibility to help nurture such a partner).

 

In a compelling vignette, Ayalon recalled his response to a question – “What to do about the oncoming Gaza flotilla?” – posed to him the week before the violent encounter aboard the Mavi Marmara. He proposed the following: Organize 50 Israeli sailboats, and sail out to meet the six-boat flotilla. Each of the 50 sailboats would fly a large flag emblazoned with the name “Gilad Shalit” (the Israeli soldier held by Hamas without visitation for four years). Bring the world media along. Allow the flotilla to land in Gaza, and permit the off-loading of the cargo with international oversight, to ensure that no weapons are hidden.

 

And what would it have accomplished? No one can say with certainty when thinking and acting is, like this, “outside the box.” But a few important outcomes would have seemed likely. First, no violent confrontation, no loss of life or limb on either side, no dueling spin machines blaming the other for the carnage. Second, to the international community, and one would hope to the citizens of Gaza and the broader Arab world, this course of action would have been viewed not as a sign of weakness but as evidence that Israel has the courage to acknowledge a failed policy and the wisdom and will to rectify it. Third, it would have capitalized on international attention by shining a bright light on Hamas’ intolerable refusal to grant outside visitation to Shalit, thus shifting much of the focus from what had been Israel’s oppressive embargo policy – now revised – to Hamas’ intolerance, human rights abuses, and obstructionism.

 

The endless impasse that is the Arab-Israeli conflict cries out for this kind of creative, strategic approach. Here’s another idea from Ayalon: Pass a law of compensation for settlers on the eastern side of the security fence/separation wall. Treat them “as heroes, not as hostages,” by his estimate, 20-30 percent would gladly return to Israel. When they do, when the settlers pack up their belongings and drive west, Palestinians will gain confidence that their long-awaited state is maybe, after all, more than illusory.

 

Bold thinking for peace. Many have already shown the way, among them Yitzhak Rabin, Ayalon, Yossi Beilin (the Geneva Initiative). Israel, as a country, is clearly capable of taking up the challenge. But does it have the will? And, even more importantly, does it have another acceptable choice?

 

Michael Felsen, lawyer, is president of Boston Workmen's Circle.