The Rambam (Hilchos M’gila v’Chanukah 3:1) summarizes the history of Chanukah: “During the Second Temple, when the Greeks ruled, they made decrees against Israel (the nation) to undermine their religion, and didn’t allow them to be involved with Torah or Mitzvos and took control of their money and their daughters, and entered the Temple and breached it and defiled that which was pure and made it very difficult for Israel, oppressing them greatly, until the G-d of our ancestors had mercy on them and rescued them from their hands and saved them.” The Rambam then explains how G-d did this: “The sons of the Chashmona’im, the High Priests, overpowered [the Greeks] and killed them and rescued [Israel] from their hands and appointed one of the priests as king, and sovereignty was returned to Israel for more than 200 years, until the destruction of the Second Temple,” He then continues (3:2-3) by recounting the miracle of the oil and how, based on this, the sages instituted the holiday of Chanukah. As I have previously discussed (see http://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/chanukah-5774/), the essence of the holiday is our once again becoming a sovereign nation, with the miracle of the oil providing the divine stamp of approval for making it a yearly celebration.

Being a sovereign nation has many advantages, but, as the State of Israel has found out the hard way, some serious disadvantages as well. Usually, the biggest issues are internal ones, as garnering the needed consensus to move forward on anything can be quite difficult. In Israel’s case, however, they also have to deal with being surrounded by hostile enemies, a sizeable internal population that identifies with these enemies more than with the country they live in, and an incredible amount of hostility across the globe. Although I usually try to avoid discussing political issues, I share the anguish of my Jewish brethren regarding Israel’s predicament, and with Jewish sovereignty being a major theme of the Chanukah story, have decided to share some thoughts that I have withheld until now.

Unfortunately (and this is a word that can unfortunately be used many, many times when it comes to the Middle East), before discussing any of the issues, certain “ground rules” must be set, as the danger of being misunderstood is great. As it is, the visceral reactions to the issue at large, as well as to the underlying issues, make it very difficult to have a rational discussion.

First of all, I don’t believe there will ever be a resolution without divine intervention of biblical proportions. Nevertheless, as with everything in life (which is ultimately in G-d’s hands) we must try to do whatever we can. Secondly, compromise, from all parties, will be necessary. When I say all parties I also mean those who are trying to help mediate a long-term sustainable resolution. Granted, until now it seems that only one side has made any real compromises, and my pessimism regarding there ever being a resolution is based primarily on my pessimism about one side ever really compromising, but all sides must be prepared to make significant, even painful, compromises. To paraphrase Shimon Peres (in his interview several years ago with the New York Times Magazine), neither love nor peace is possible without closing your eyes and ignoring several aspects of your partner. Included in these compromises is the need to (sometimes) ignore the truth and focus on practical steps that can be taken at this point in time, even if where we are at this point is built on lies, embellishments, violence and pain.

So far I have avoided using any term for one side of the conflict, because the term most widely used, Palestinians, is a misnomer. When the country was called “Palestine” (before the State of Israel was founded), there were both Jewish and Arab residents, making the more appropriate term for the Arabs whose families lived in Palestine “Palestinian Arabs.” A similar term, “Palestinian Jews,” referring to Jews whose families lived in Palestine before 1948, is just as appropriate, making the term “Palestinians” one that can refer equally to both Arabs and Jews. A strong argument could be made that before 1948 there was no Palestinian nationality, but it would be difficult to deny that one has since evolved, even if their “nationhood” is based on their negative reaction to the founding of the State of Israel. [From a sociological perspective, it’s not that different from our becoming a nation in the “crucible” of Egypt based on our experiences there.] Since based on their shared experiences they are now a nation (even if those experiences were artificially manufactured), how and when they became a nation is irrelevant to reaching a long term sustainable resolution, as is how they are referred to. If there will ever be a two state solution, one of them will be called “Palestine,” so refusing to refer to its future residents as “Palestinians” because they shouldn’t have been referred to that way originally is counterproductive (in the context of a two-state solution). Therefore, I will refer to them as “Palestinians,” even though I am mindful of the baggage that comes with the term.

Because of my pessimism regarding the ability of the Palestinians to accept anything less than the elimination of the State of Israel (as well as ever allowing Jewish residents to live in any part of the Holy Land) — which makes any real compromise by Israel essentially worthless — the only real possibility of anything happening must come from outside the two involved parties. Unfortunately, the world, specifically the West (the United States and the European Union) has not held the Palestinians accountable for their actions, nor for their refusal to make any meaningful compromises. Instead, they have given them political cover and support, as well as serious financial aid. Until the West makes real demands of the Palestinians, things will only get worse. Although the recent support in Europe for a Palestinian state and the attempt by the Palestinians to pass a U.N. resolution insisting that Israel withdraw by a certain date from any land conquered in 1967 are detrimental to reaching a solution negotiated by the two parties, it does create a window for the world to start placing some meaningful demands on the Palestinians.

An obvious prerequisite (and I do mean prerequisite, as opposed to in conjunction with any withdrawal) is an end to any reference or implication of the elimination of the State of Israel in any and all official Palestinian literature. Maps of “Palestine,” including the map of “Palestine” that is part of their logo, cannot include any land that will be part of the State of Israel after a withdrawal. How can “Palestine” be part of a two-state solution if it only acknowledges one of the two states, claiming the land of both? By allowing official Palestinian literature  to contain any indication of having aspirations for land that will be part of Israel, the West has emboldened the Palestinians, allowing them to think they can have it all without being held accountable. There must also be an insistence that the Palestinian leadership renounces all terrorism (in all languages, to all audiences), including incitement, with a mechanism in place that includes meaningful consequences if the Palestinians do not live up to this requirement.

Another issue that must be addressed is land swaps. No one expects any two-state solution to work without land swaps, but if there is no provision for it before any withdrawal must take effect, there is no incentive for the Palestinians to agree to one before the deadline for Israel to withdraw. If, however, the required withdrawal includes a prior agreement regarding which lands will be swapped, there is no less pressure on the Palestinians to agree to a land swap than there is on Israel. (The current resolution mentions land swaps, but only in the window of negotiations; I am referring to it being a required agreement before the mandated withdrawal.)

A compromise resolution that passed in the European Parliament this week supporting “in principle the recognition of Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution,” which “should go hand in hand with the development of peace talks” also included “strong support” for a “secure State of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security on the basis of the right of self-determination and full respect of international law.” Sounds unrealistic (similar wording is in the resolution draft), but why has there been no protest against repeated Palestinian insistence that no Jew will be allowed to live in Palestine? How can they support a Palestinian State that insists that no Jew can live within its borders? [We’ll put aside how different the dynamic of the “settlement blocs” would be if withdrawing from the post-1967 orders did not automatically mean that these blocs could not become part of “Palestine.”] It must be made abundantly clear than a Palestinian State that is “Judenrein” will not be allowed.

Which brings us to what I think is the key issue for any resolution: Palestinian acknowledgment of the historical ties between the Land of Israel (including the Temple Mount) and the Jewish people. This aspect is completely separate from Israel being a “Jewish State” (an issue beyond the scope of this piece), as it also applies to land that would become part of a Palestinian State. The biggest failure of the West in this elongated “peace process” has been its failure to insist that the Arab world acknowledge our historical connection to the land. [In a negotiated agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the wording can be watered down to acknowledging the Jewish perspective that we have an historical connection to the land. Although this connection is undeniable, for political purposes it can be compared to our acknowledging that Muslims have a religious connection to the Temple Mount without believing that what they believe happened there. But this is only appropriate in a negotiated settlement; when it comes to a resolution demanding that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 orders, a demand for acknowledgment by the Palestinians of our historical connection to the land cannot be a negotiating tactic.] The Palestinians seem motivated to deny our connection to the land because they think (agree?) that having such a connection gives us the right to live on it (similar to their Holocaust denial being based on the thinking that it is what gives the State of Israel the right to exist); if we were there first, their moving in after we were forced off wouldn’t give them the right to keep it. [This line of thinking has much validity.] However, since no one else denies our connection to the land, yet still think land conquered in 1967 belongs to the Palestinians since they lived there prior to 1967 (based on an arbitrary date of when history is “reset” and whomever lived somewhere at the “reset” is deemed the rightful owner), there is no need for them to continue to insist that there is no historical connection between the land and the Jewish people just to be able to establish their own state on the same land. There has to be a strong movement from there being “dueling narratives” to acknowledging a “dual narrative.”

By not insisting that the Palestinians acknowledge our historical connection to the land, the West has not only undermined the peace process, but it has given the Palestinians a license to mistreat our holy places, invent grievances and incite extremists. The West can right this wrong (to some extent) by starting to insist that any Israeli withdrawal is contingent upon the Arab world (once again, since they did at one time) acknowledging our historical connection to the land.

When it comes to the continuing suffering of the Palestinians, there is much blame to go around. The primary blame should be directed at the failed Palestinian leadership for selfishly prolonging the conflict in order to maintain their leadership positions and for putting their desire to annihilate Israel ahead of any desire to ease the suffering of the people they lead. The leadership of the rest of the Arab world is a close second, as for many years they sacrificed the well-being of the Palestinian people in order to scapegoat the Israelis and distract their own people from their problems. (This has started to change a bit recently.) A not-so-distant third is the West, who have enabled the Palestinians to get away with too much for too long, providing them with little or no reason to compromise. And the best place to start to reverse this is by insisting that any peace partner must acknowledge the historical connection the other has to the land.