Achieving Political Sustainability in Israel

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Sustainability has become the watchword of environmentalists worldwide but somehow or other the concept has not permeated the psyche of those involved in politics.

The dictionary defines sustainability as “using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.” While this generally applies to conserving the natural resources of the planet to ensure our long term ability to survive, isn’t it also applicable to political situations? And wouldn’t the concept of sustainability also apply to Israel? Perhaps so.

The challenge in applying the concept of sustainability to a political situation is that different people look at the concept through very different lenses. For example, there are those who believe that Eretz Israel (i.e. the Land of Israel) as described in the Torah is the resource and, in order to support the concept of sustainability, we must do everything we can to preserve that resource. In theory that all sounds logical. However, much of that resource has already been lost to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and even the most ardent supporters of this approach harbor no hope that those portions of the land will ever be returned to us. Today, those who see sustainability through these lenses are committed to retaining Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) and to recapturing Gaza as well in order to be minimally loyal to the concept of Eretz Israel.

Then there are others who look at sustainability as the challenge before us to maintain what we already have and ensure our long term survival in that space. For those who subscribe to this approach sustainability means retaining all of the land within the oft referenced 1967 borders as well as the large settlement blocs (i.e. Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, etc.) in Judea and Samaria, while acknowledging the Palestinian Arab claim to their roots here and their right to the establishment of an independent state of Palestine on the remaining areas not included in this formulation.

Finally, there is that third group of Israelis who have internalized sustainability to the point where they believe that complete separation from the Palestinian Arab population in Judea and Samaria is the only practical path to sustainability. This group is prepared to close down the settlement enterprise completely, draw a clear border between Israel and the future state of Palestine and then find some way to function in a geographically reduced Israel.

Of course, at some point in time theory must give way to practice. To quote that great American philosopher (and former New York Yankee catcher and manager) Yogi Berra, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” So the job of the government then is to understand the multiple theories that are shared by different segments of the population here and see “sustainability” as doing what is best to ensure that our children and grandchildren will still be able to live in an Israel that is both Jewish and democratic without the constant threat of war and terror. None of the three theories of political sustainability described above are solutions in and of themselves. But if three circles are drawn, each representing one of those theories, it will soon become obvious that where those three circles intersect and overlap lie the elements of a theory that can be acceptable to all.

Is that just a theory as well? I think not. Is there something that can be done to put the theory into practice and actually make it happen? I think so.

The first challenge of our government is to shut up. There is altogether too much “noise” in our system which, in the long run, tends to do us more harm than good. Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman is a case in point. His verbal assaults on Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas last week brought no positive value whatsoever to the attempt to find a way to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. While I know that a lot of people like to say that Lieberman says out loud what many of us think, that does not make his diatribes acceptable. When he agreed to accept the position as Foreign Minister, he also agreed, prima facie, to act like a diplomat and not like a bull in a china shop. The fact that the Prime Minister did not disassociate himself from those comments is even less understandable.

The second challenge of the government is to find a creative formula that makes it impossible for the other side to refuse to meet. Last week I suggested a 90-day construction freeze in the territories as a gesture to the Palestinian Arab leadership. That was a mistake on my part and a reader in Chicago suggested something much more sensible, a 90-day construction freeze to begin the day the parties sit down to negotiate. I actually thought that was brilliant on the part of my friend there.

The third challenge for the government is to understand and internalize that sustainability means dealing in realistic expectations and making sure that the messages that come out of government circles, all government agencies, reflect reality and not the wishful thinking of people who are not willing to look at facts and deal with them honestly.

French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) said “The future belongs to those who give the next generation reason for hope.” That is the true definition of sustainability in politics and both sides here need to internalize this in order for our grandchildren to live here in peace and security.