Editorials An Israeli Strategy in Preparation for September By Meir Kraus The following article by Mr.

Meir Kraus, Director of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, was published in the editorial supplement of the newspaper Israel HaYom. The article explores potential strategies for Israel in preparation for the possibility that the United Nations (UN) will recognize a Palestinian state in September: The recent assertion by former Mossad director Meir Dagan that Israel should not block Palestinian moves within the UN highlights the need for a serious and substantive examination of the alternatives available to Israel regarding its position on this Palestinian process. To date, the Israeli and international political discourse surrounding potential strategies for Israel in preparation for UN recognition in September has focused on two possible alternatives: a strategy of opposition and a strategy of initiation. The strategy of opposition aims to persuade states friendly to Israel not to support this move and thereby to minimize Palestinian gains. Towards this end Israel argues that this is a unilateral move, inconsistent with signed agreements and the need to reach an agreement at the negotiating table. This strategy received the support of the president of the United States in his speech last week. The strategy of initiation, in contrast, calls upon Israel to put together a political initiative that would counter-balance the process within the UN, an initiative that would entice the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table and cause them to abandon the political process within the UN. Such an initiative, it is argued, would generate international pressure on the Palestinians to pursue their objectives through mutual agreement of both sides rather than unilaterally. The following questions should be posed when choosing between these alternatives: Which alternative minimizes political damage to Israel and prevents it appearing as being opposed to peace? Which alternative has the potential to influence or thwart the process? Which alternative makes possible a return to the negotiating table the following day and reinforces a Palestinian preference for a political process rather than terrorism? Which alternative can be transformed into an Israeli position within both the Israeli political system and the timetable available until September? The strategy of opposition even with the support of the US and others is not enough to thwart the process or influence its substance. This strategy would increase political damage to Israel and force it into a very difficult position. Israel would continue to be portrayed as an occupier and opponent of peace. The resolution would define the borders of the Palestinian state as the 1967 borders, and continued Israeli rule could result in measures being taken against it. Regarding the day after the vote: A unilateral Palestinian gain, achieved in defiance of Israels will, would constitute a political victory and could affect the willingness of Palestinians to return to the negotiating table or, alternatively, could harden their position on relevant issues.

Alternatively, the strategy of initiation has the potential to reduce political pressure on Israel and to make visible its willingness to advance the process. At the same time, this strategy probably would not prevent the Palestinians from continuing their own political initiative. They need a victory and a sense of accomplishment, and they need to achieve this by themselves for their people. No Israeli initiative is able to entice them to relinquish their move in light of the expectations that have been generated, particularly in the time remaining and given the lack of trust between the two sides. Nor is it realistic to expect the government to formulate a political initiative of real substance addressing the complex issues on the negotiating agenda in the time remaining. Thus, neither one of the strategies discussed is able to address the challenge Israel faces. Another alternative does exist, however. The strategy of containment assumes that there is no way to prevent the process of recognition of a Palestinian state, nor would it be right to attempt to do so. Yet there is a way to minimize the negative impact of this process with regard to the international system and in relation to the Palestinian gain, while preventing damage to Israel politically and to Israels image. This strategy posits that Israel recognize the Palestinian state and call for peace and good neighborly relations between it and the State of Israel. Israels stance is that a conflict over borders exists between Israel and the Palestinian state, and a solution will be found only through negotiations. Israel would take measures among its friends throughout the world to soften the text of the resolution presented at the UN so as not to define the states borders along 1967 lines but, rather, to offer a more delicate formulation from Israels perspective, while making clear that the final borders are to be determined through negotiation. The benefits of such a process would include removal of the sting from the unilateral process and turning it into a consensual process, presentation of Israel as generous and peaceloving, significant easing of pressure on Israels friends under these complicated circumstances, reinforcement of the Palestinian preference for a political process, and creation of a positive environment that would allow a return to the negotiating table afterwards. The strategy of containment does not deviate from the prime ministers position as expressed in his speech at Bar-Ilan University and recent speeches in the US regarding the vision of two states for two peoples. This strategy appears to be the best alternative, allowing Israel to influence the process and improve its international standing, while allowing the political process to advance on the day after the vote. Indeed, Meir Dagan was right in pointing out that it would be a mistake on Israels part to try to thwart the Palestinian process in the UN. Such an effort would not succeed, and more importantly, the day after the vote would be a very dark day.