-
U.S. POLICY
Will China Surpass the U.S.?
-
NEOCONSERVATIVES
Why The Neocon Strategy Was A Failure
-
ISRAEL
How Powerful Is the Israel Lobby?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 9:50 PM
Share
Lots of smart people have been focusing on the Israeli elections and trying to make sense of their immediate implications for the peace process. I can’t improve on the analyses provided by Glenn Greenwald, Yossi Alpher, Bernard Avishai, or Uri Avnery, who explain why there is little reason to be optimistic and many reasons to be worried.
I want to focus on a different issue, which is likely to be more important in the long run.
It's this: What do we do if a "two-state solution" becomes impossible?
During the past 10 years, the "two-state solution" has been the mantra of most moderates involved in the seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni say they want it, and so does Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The 2007 Arab League peace plan envisions two states living side by side, and George W. Bush and Condi Rice repeatedly said that a two-state solution was their goal too (although they did precious little to achieve it). Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton all say they are going to push hard for it now. I might add that the two-state solution is also my preferred option.
Interestingly, this moderate consensus in favor of two states is itself a fairly new development. The 1993 Oslo Accords do not talk explicitly about a Palestinian state, and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the agreement, never endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state in public. And when First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke about the need for a Palestinian state back in 1998, she was roundly criticized, and the White House promptly distanced itself from her remarks. In fact, Bill Clinton didn't endorse the idea of a Palestinian state until his last month in office. The mainstream "consensus" behind this solution is in fact a relatively recent creation.
Today, invoking the "two-state" mantra allows moderates to sound reasonable and true to the ideals of democracy and self-determination; but it doesn't force them to actually do anything to bring that goal about. Indeed, defending the two-state solution has become a recipe for inaction, a fig leaf that leaders can utter at press conferences while ignoring the expanding settlements and road networks on the West Bank that are rendering it impossible. Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is a perfect illustration: He has lately become an eloquent voice in favor of two states, warning of the perils that Israel will face if the two-state option is not adopted. Yet his own government continued to expand the settlements and undermine Palestinian moderates, thereby putting the solution Olmert supposedly favors further away than ever, and maybe even making it unworkable.
There are two trends at play that threaten to undermine the two-state option. The first is the continued expansion of Israel settlements in the land that is supposed to be reserved for the Palestinians. There are now about 290,000 settlers living in the West Bank. There are another 185,000 settlers in East Jerusalem. Most of the settlers are subsidized directly or indirectly by the Israeli government. It is increasingly hard to imagine Israel evicting nearly half a million people (about 7 percent of its population) from their homes. Although in theory one can imagine a peace deal that keeps most of the settlers within Israel's final borders (with the new Palestinian state receiving land of equal value as compensation), at some point the settlers' efforts to "create facts" will make it practically impossible to establish a viable Palestinian state.
The second trend is the growing extremism on both sides. Time is running out on a two-state solution, and its main opponents -- the Likud Party and its allies in Israel, and Hamas among the Palestinians -- are becoming more popular. The rising popularity of Avigdor Lieberman's overtly racist Yisrael Beiteinu party is ample evidence of this trend. And it's not as though Kadima or Labor have been pushing hard to bring it about. According to Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times:
The result is that the next Israeli government, left to its own devices, is likely to opt for the status quo with the Palestinians - continued occupation of the West Bank, desultory peace talks, steadily expanding settlements and military force in response to Palestinian rockets or bombs. The long-term pursuit of a two-state solution will be brushed aside, with the argument that the Palestinians are too divided and dangerous to be negotiating partners."
One does not need to look far down the road to see the point where a two-state solution will no longer be a practical possibility. What will the United States do then? What will American policy be when it makes no sense to talk about a two-state solution, because Israel effectively controls all of what we used to call Mandate Palestine? What vision will President Obama and Secretary Clinton have for the Palestinians and for Israel when they can no longer invoke the two-state mantra?
There are only three alternative options at that point. First, Israel could drive most or all of the 2.5 million Palestinians out of the West Bank by force, thereby preserving "greater Israel" as a Jewish state through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. The Palestinians would surely resist, and it would be a crime against humanity, conducted in full view of a horrified world. No American government could support such a step, and no true friend of Israel could endorse that solution.
Second, Israel could retain control of the West Bank but allow the Palestinians limited autonomy in a set of disconnected enclaves, while it controlled access in and out, their water supplies, and the airspace above them. This appears to have been Ariel Sharon's strategy before he was incapacitated, and Bibi Netanyahu's proposal for "economic peace" without a Palestinian state seems to envision a similar outcome. In short, the Palestinians would not get a viable state of their own and would not enjoy full political rights. This is the solution that many people -- including Prime Minister Olmert -- compare to the apartheid regime in South Africa. It is hard to imagine the United States supporting this outcome over the long term, and Olmert has said as much. Denying the Palestinians their own national aspirations is also not going to end the conflict.
Which brings me to the third option. The Israeli government could maintain its physical control over "greater Israel" and grant the Palestinians full democratic rights within this territory. This option has been proposed by a handful of Israeli Jews and a growing number of Palestinians. But there are formidable objections to this outcome: It would mean abandoning the Zionist dream of an independent Jewish state, and binational states of this sort do not have an encouraging track record, especially when the two parties have waged a bitter conflict across several generations. This is why I prefer the two-state alternative.
But if a two-state option is no longer feasible, it seems likely that the United States would come to favor this third choice. After all, supporting option 2 -- an apartheid state -- is contrary to the core American values of freedom and democracy and would make the United States look especially hypocritical whenever it tried to present itself as a model for the rest of the world. Openly endorsing apartheid would also demolish any hope we might have of improving our image in the Arab and Islamic world. Lord knows I have plenty of respect for the Israel lobby's ability to shape U.S. foreign policy, but even AIPAC and the other heavyweight institutions in the lobby would have great difficulty maintaining the "special relationship" if Israel was an apartheid state. By contrast, option 3 -- a binational state that provided full democratic rights for citizens of all ethnic and religious backgrounds -- is easy to reconcile with America's own “melting pot” traditions and liberal political values. American politicians would find it a hard option to argue against.
Bottom line: If the two-state solution dies, as seems increasingly likely, the United States is going to face a very awkward set of choices. That’s one reason why Obama and his team -- as well as Israel's friends in the United States -- should move beyond paying lip-service to the idea of creating a Palestinian state and actually do something about it. But it's hard to be optimistic that they will.
And while I'm at it, here's one more heretical thought. Shouldn't someone in the U.S. government start thinking about what our policy should be in the event that the two-state solution collapses? Starting to contemplate this possibility is risky, of course, because it might undermine our efforts to create two states if it became known that we were beginning to plan for an alternative future. But the fact is that we may face that future before too much longer. If so, then it might be a good idea if somebody began thinking about how to deal with it now, so that we don’t have to invent a new approach on the fly.
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, MIDDLE EAST, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
The two state solution was never an option
Dr. Walt in my humble opinion I think that neither side in this dispute ever wanted to split the land between two peoples.
When reading or speaking to Israelis of all political hues one is always left with the impression that they feel that if any Palestinian state is established in Judea, Samaria or Gaza it will inevitably lead to that state launching a war of liberation for the rest of British Mandate Palestine.
On the Palestinian side there is always the sneaking suspicion that even the most vocal Israeli supporters of an independent Palestinian state are only paying lip service to such a cause.
This then leaves the United States in an unenviable position of finding itself between the devil and the deep blue sea.
In reality thousands of years of Middle East history has shown us that in this neighbourhood might is right. Currently Israel is the superior military power and therefore has all the rights. It will be loathsome to give up any such right to a Palestinian state that it feels will threaten its security .
Which brings me back to the notion of the "two-state" solution. A notion, which I believe in essence and application was, is and will always was be an anathema to both parties in the dispute.
When reading or speaking to Israelis of all political hues one is always left with the impression that they feel that if any Palestinian state is established in Judea, Samaria or Gaza it will inevitably lead to that state launching a war of liberation for the rest of British Mandate Palestine.
That's not been my experience.
More to the point, both Israeli and Palestinian attitudes are malleable. The problem on the Israeli side is that a Netanyahu government is likely to make things worse. On the Palestinian side, the problem is that Hamas power and PA ineffectiveness reinforce the Israeli fears of just the scenario you describe.
But this only underscores the urgency of outsiders, principally the United States, acting to alter attitudes in directions more conducive to peace.
Neither two state nor one state is a solution.
I keep repeating myself but you guys too.
Neither one state nor two state is a solution. You have already counted some of those reasons why, I am not going to add my ones here, I don't have time for that.
The solution is; you guyshave to give up your archaic concept of "state". Once you give up that useless concept then the statement "Neither two state nor one state is a solution" will become meaningless or historic belonging to the old concept of "state".
But, to shift this concept "state" or to drop it completely you need to start from your own Constitution before you try to find solutions to distant/overseas peoples.
Look at yourselves Guys, you are helpless even in front of a small scale space-time-people problem like that. And ask yourselves what will you be doing when those problems keep multiplying themselves, please, please do not wait till things get completely out of control. There is something seriously wrong with your conceptual system, do not ignore it before the whole of it collapses on you and leave no room to live.
Alternatively why don't you use WMD to solve the problem;->>
If you invest your resources to weapons rather than words that's what you end up with, what a pity, what a waste;-<
Good luck Guys!
Grand Sen~or
You can't drop the concept of a 'state' out of this, at this point. Like it or not, states are the only sovereign entities in the modern international system. Until that is no longer the case, statehood will always be the goal of groups seeking political self-determination they lack within their current setting.
States will be with us, until someone comes up with something better. Since there is no existing "something better" to point to, Israelis and Palestinians are going to want states.
Who will come up with something better?
States will be with us, until someone comes up with something better.
Whom do you expect to come up with something better?
God?
Prof. Walt?
16th Century French Revolutionaries?
Founding Fathers?
Whom do you expect?
Suppose you are living in an Island, you produce a ceratain type of foodstuff and and you feed yourselves with it, but it doesn't help you, you are getting weaker and weaker and nervous and fight with each other and don't know why.
And one day a Grand Sen~or happens to visit your island and starts observing what is happening there.After some time based on his previous experience discovers that there is seriously something wrong with the diet you are in.
One day he tells you "Guys! there is something wrong with your diet, it contains to much glucose, drom from your dieat most of the sweet things you will become healthy again." And as a response to that one of your elders stands up and says to Grand Sen~or;->
"This is the diet we know which makes us what we are - the Proud Islander Suger-Shack. So, unlsess some one comes us with a better diet to keep our being Suger-Shacks, we are not going to give up our diet!",
What do you expect Grand Sen~or to respond to that Guy;->>
Grand Sen~or is a very respectful Guy, he respect others will, so he says;->
"Unless you will to change your diet, none can make you change it accept death!, but hey! everyone will die one day, what does it matter for you sooner or later;->>"
Enjoy your idle talks Guys, life is fun and game;->>
Grand Sen~or
You can't drop the concept of a 'state' out of this
what does that mean?
are you trying to say that "state" is God given;->
the only sovereign entities in the modern international system. Until that is no longer the case,>
"only sovereign entities" himmmm??!!
what about Jewish Lobby?!
Isn't it sovereign entity which aims to integrate with all the jews around the world and Israel?
Actually the concept "state" used here in this Blogg is prescribed by the SATFP. And the SATFP is just another theory. Therefore one can drom "state" from the list of terms and invent another theory of Fp without it. I thinkyou confuse the ordinary language (OL) concept of "state" with the theoretical one. If the theoretical concept "state" doesn't help to report what you observe in FP and make prdictions according to the theory (the SATFP) then you have all the good reasons to give up your whole theory and invent another one.
Even if you claim that the "state" you are using here is from the OL then you can still use the OL ignoring the concept "state" and engaging other concept. You can even invent new concepts when you see that a concept completely lost its functionality. None one, no state, no FP, no law is holding you not to do that. So, you see ;-> Yes you can drop the concept "state" here.
When I observe all the bosh-talk here which produces no action whatsoever in the language other than idling I can't help to suggest you to drop the bankrupted concept "state" so that you can approach the phenomena from a different perspective which may help you to express the reality better.
Grand Sen~or
I agree that the two-state solution is preferable, but you're surely not taxing your imagination if you view those three options as the only possible alternatives.
One could envision Gaza becoming part of Egypt and the West Bank becoming part of Jordan. One need not go back that far in history to see that Gaza was controlled by Egypt in the 1950s, and Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem for two decades until the late 1960s. Of course, this option is nearly as unrealistic as your three, and I suppose it does lack the sexiness of having the Israelis engage in ethnic cleansing or ending in the destruction of the Jewish state.
You've ignored one option, namely,
that the status quo drags on, at least to the end of the current administration. If the Israeli government remains, at least rhetorically, committed to the idea of a two-state peace settlement, then, unless the Palestinians are able to get their act together, then that government may be able successfully to blame Palestinian inability or unwillingness to make peace for its own refusal to do much of practical significance.
But, in my view, this only underscores the importance, and urgency, of the Obama administration actively communicating to both Israelis and Palestinians why we actively support a two-state peace settlement -- modeled on the Clinton peace parameters as elaborated, for example, by the Geneva Accord. Israelis are not stupid. Nor, as Rabin's electoral victory showed, is a majority willing to sacrifice its own interests for the settlements. Until now, however, our government has not tried to communicate to ordinary Israelis any unwillingness to continue tolerating the settlements project.
One difficulty, of course, is that putting too much daylight between the United States and Israel threatens to reduce Palestinian and Arab incentives to make peace with Israel. So, America's policy will have to be executed with greater dexterity than under either Clinton or Bush II.
Nor are Palestinians stupid. They need reasons to believe that a two-state peace settlement can be achieved in a way that they obtain a viable state. Perhaps the most effective way to do this is a reduction in roadblocks and similar "security" measures along with the removal of settlements outside any area that conceivably might be annexed to Israel as part of a one-for-one swap of territory.
All that said, I think the two-state peace settlement is rather resilient precisely because the alternatives, apart from the status quo, are intolerable. And, while I doubt the sustainability of the status quo in the long run, the long run may be very long indeed.
Finally, on a separate point, I could not disagree more with your apparent assumption that "the Israel lobby" would try to support your option 2. Were option 2 serious on the table, "the Israel lobby" as you've described it would break up. I don't know what a "realist" would make of what I'm about to say, but, in my view, most American Jews, and most American Jewish organizations, will not support a policy so at variance with their understanding of both American and Jewish values.
Then Israel will choose expulsion?
If Israel chose apartheid, it's likely that they would not be able to count upon long-term support from the USA. So Israel is likely to choose one of the other options. Many Israelis wouldn't want a one-state solution, so I think Israel would choose expulsion instead.
If Israel did this, they might calculate that although they will face widespread condemnation, there will be no serious economic sanctions against Israel (i.e. not serious enough to threaten the survival of the Israeli state), and they'll be able to ride out sanctions for a few years until the world gets used to their fait accompli and accepts it.
Expulsion may be workable if one only considers Israel and the currently weak military position of its immediate neighbors. But I think expulsion would spark a wider, if not global, war. Iran would probably act to stop it out of Islamic moral obligation, and would face nuclear annhilation. If Iran did not succeed in destroying Israel at the same time, these events would be the final humiliations that induce all Muslims on earth to unite under a movement to create an all-powerful Caliphate. A truly democratic popular movement to create the Caliphate could spread like wildfire, and unite the Islamic people very quickly. They would have a single holy mission - to destroy western civillization and conquer the earth. And their first target for nuclear destruction would be Israel.
The 'two-state' solution should really be called the 'one-and-a-half' state solution. Even if Israel by and large satisfies Palestinian territorial requirements, it seems unlikely that the security needs of Palestinians will be allowed to count nearly as much as Israelis' needs. Will Israel give up control of Palestinian air space, permit Palestine to have an army and abandon any interest in remaining, if only on a leasing basis, in the Jordan Valley?
By your logic that would be 2 and a half
Jordan accounts for more than 3/4 of mandatory Palestine. The majority of Jordanians see themselves as Palestinaian. Isn't a nation's definition of it's national character ultimately a function of self perception?
And then there's the question of making a living!
I think it should be assumed that Israel would not permit a serious defensive capability for Palestine. But what of the simple question of Palestinians' economic needs? Israel has shown itself to be unconscionably negligent of the need for the provision of economic fundamentals (free movement; education; basic nutrition) while the territories and their residents have been their responsibility under international law. What can we expect from them in terms of allowing the inputs necessary for real economic development once those matters have become another government's problem entirely?
the best post you've written yet
One could envision Gaza becoming part of Egypt and the West Bank becoming part of Jordan. One need not go back that far in history
Yes, that's the vision of the Golden Age of Israeli politics. When everything was still hunky-dory and the select enlightened few decided what happened to the crowds. Without existing nationality no rights to the land. ... People cannot own land only kings can own both land and people.
Ironically we have today a slightly different scenario. Even Israel seems to be a quite divided between demanding democracy and human rights for the Arab/Muslim masses and solving its problems the old way. As your suggestion shows.
Actually Palestinian relocation is the key. After all, if an estimated 750K Palestinians can break out of the border and take a mini tour of Egypt in January 08 then surely Egypt can re absorb their former colonists
Same for Jordan, in fact any of the 22 members of Arab League would greatly benefit from the assimilation of the most literate Arabs on the face of the earth. Since Palestinians have a history of voting in free, transparent elections their reunification with kindred nation states would be a stabilizing democratic influence of strategic proportions. Refugee status would be eliminated as millions of Palestinians become loyal productive citizens of the Middle East.
Reparations would be just and significant when apportioned from the five neighboring autocratic societies that have repeatedly attacked a functional democratic member of the UN and repeatedly lost
Actually Palestinian relocation is the key.
Excellent idea, and the Israeli Jews should then return to Europe. They would then become involved in elections in their respective countries and with time elect a rasict apartheid government that would expel and opress the indeginous populations. They would contiue to receive US aid in the form of reparations.
Little Satan's combat bona fides (along with the highest lit rate in the entire ME and the most phd's per capita) make such intolerance as suspect as the typos.
Out of context with Palestinian realities....
'in fact any of the 22 members of Arab League would greatly benefit from the assimilation of the most literate Arabs on the face of the earth. "
Palestinians have lived in diaspora in the Arab nations for many years. They are not just "absorbed" or "assimilated". This is a misconception born of ignorance of Arab history and identity. Being Arab is a primarily a linguistic and cultural affiliation. Where as their ethnic identities, in several studies divides them between city-dwellers and bedouin, in the Palestinian case. In the case of the city dwellers, you are talking about a community that is much more defined by their geography, like a small city state. Equally, not only does a person come from a village, but there entire and family and histories are intricately tied to these villages. Thus, picking an Palestinian up and moving them to Tabarka, they are just not going to be seen as either Tunisian or a person of Tabarka. This shows an ignorance of Arab peoples similar to the "all Blacks are the same."
To recount some of the atrocities Palestinians have faced in diaspora: Black September, the Sabra and Shatila massacres at the hands of the Phalange, the expulsion out of Kuwait, the march from Libya to the Egyptian border where they were held for months in a make shift camp, and today they are facing dire straights after being "assimilated" into Iraq. Thus, Palestinians have no reason to trust in such an option that they probably see as a copout. Equally, I see little empirical proof that while this "ideal" is actually viable, beyond the whim of those who want an easy solution.
Maybe Israel and Palestine are limited to 3 options. But America can choose to disengage from these fractious people and wish them best of luck as they murder each other.
As time goes by we are getting further removed from the holocaust and the misplaced guilt felt by many Americans. Americans are also becoming more diverse, with more non-Euro peoples who feel zero guilt about the holocaust. Americans are also sensing that the Palestinians are an oppressed people rather than terrorists.
We should divest ouirselves from this nightmare.
It's funny how everyone is coming out in favor of a 2-state solution, just when it has become clear that a 2-state solution is no longer possible. Because you can't have all of Mandate Palestine for Jews and a closet for Palestinians and call that a 2-state solution. It is clear that Israel, the much stronger party in this conflict, will not give up the West Bank, and without the West Bank you cannot have a Palestinian state. So all this talk and negotiation is just a waste of time. There will be bantustans and apartheid; I don't think the Israelis will be able to get away with whole-sale ethnic cleansing. But it will not last. Sooner or later the cycle will reverse; look at our economic situation. How much longer will we be able to act as though Israel is the 51st state? Then there will probably be a huge war in the Middle East and in the end, there will be one state for all the people.
alternatively there will be no state
state for all the people.
alternatively there will be no state, because the concept "state" will completely collapse and new concepts will share its place.
You Guys are frustrated with this concept "state", completely entrapped and bewitched by it, you think that life will be impossible without it, if you are the fish then "state" is the water for you, without it you are dead;->
I suggest you study the history of this concept "state" to escape from its tyranny and save your intelligence from its bewitchment.
You are in a loop.
Grand Sen~or
Two-state solu\tion IS the denial of Palestinian aspirations
Lots of really fundamental errors in Prof. Walt's analysis. I'll point out a few.
Contrary to the received wisdom, the settlers can be evacuated in the blink of an eye, with no serious trouble, the minute the Israeli electorate decides to do so. Remember that "the settlers" is a construct used mainly by the left; always be skeptical when someone gives a numerical figure for them without defining them. Most settlers are non-ideological, many would not have to move at all (would French Hill really be part of Palestine?), and almost all would evacuate the West Bank as easily as they left Gaza. Notwithstanding center-left mythology, they simply are not an obstacle to a Palestinian state.
Second, there is no "growing extremism on both sides." Even accepting the tendentious and misleading categories of "moderates" and "extremists" (the historian Elie Kedourie warned of such misleading labels), Israelis are clearly not becoming more "extremist." They support the two-state solution - provided it's actually a solution - just as they have since (pace Prof. Walt) the beginning of the Oslo process. I'd argue that the Palestinians aren't more "extremist" either, but that's actually disputable. In any case it's not all that relevant because the Palestinian "moderates" won't in the near future be strong enough to suppress the "extremists," no matter what Israel, the US, and other states do.
Prof. Walt cited the growing support for the so-called "racist" Avigdor Lieberman. But that just disproves Walt's own point. Lieberman's party supports a two-state solution. That's why some on the right have called him a leftist. What Lieberman wants to do is to draw the borders of the two states to follow demographics, so that Umm al-Fahem for instance will be in the state of Palestine. (Henry Kissinger also endorses such a plan.) Like it or not, racist or not, Lieberman's party, which is now the third largest party in Israel, supports a two-state solution. This was Lieberman's main platform position in the previous election. In the recent election he concentrated almost exclusively on internal matters: the issue of loyalty of Arab Israeli citizens and especially of Arab members of parliament.
On the future if the two-state solution doesn't come about. First of all, it should be recalled that the Jordanian/Egyptian solution is Israel's wet dream, even though Jordan and especially Egypt would never agree to administering the territories. But it's important to remember this because it emphasizes that Israelis passionately want to get rid of the territories.
A fourth possibility is a combination of Walt's second and third. That would be a contiguous (non-Bantustan) Palestinian territory, with autonomy but not sovereignty. Of course that's close to the Likud's "Iron Wall" vision. It would never be accepted by the Palestinians. It would not bring peace, but it would not bring the kind of intensified warfare that a Palestinian state would bring.
Finally, there's the error, implicit in the whole analysis, that the two-state "solution" actually solves something for Israel. (I don't deny that it would be in the US's interests.) It should always be kept in mind: the two-state solution is the denial of Palestinian national aspirations. It's giving them back half of the land stolen by the Zionists - and a Muslim wakf at that - and asking them to smile and stop complaining. Ain't gonna happen. There will be Palestinian groups which will continue the armed struggle to liberate their entire homeland, and no Palestinian state will have the will and the ability to suppress their struggle for liberation.
But the main error in Prof. Walt's analysis was that it would be harder for Israel to accept a two-state solution now and in the near future than it has been in the past. Just because everybody from the center to the Zionist left says it doesn't make it so.
It should always be kept in mind: the two-state solution is the denial of Palestinian national aspirations. It's giving them back half of the land stolen by the Zionists - and a Muslim wakf at that - and asking them to smile and stop complaining. Ain't gonna happen. There will be Palestinian groups which will continue the armed struggle to liberate their entire homeland, and no Palestinian state will have the will and the ability to suppress their struggle for liberation.
This statement is absolutely spot-on. It should always be kept in mind. The foundation of a new Palestine would not be the end of hell for Israel, but its beginning. I can see then where hardline Likudniks are coming from, even as I sympathize with the Palestinians who would be told to be grateful for being handed back a devastated rump of a homeland 60 years after being displaced. I am beginning to see that it is the moderates and peacemakers (ie the U.S.) in this debate that is on shaky ground, whereas the hard lines see reality. I can see why these debates always go back to the foundational dispute, in this case 1948 rather than 1967.
This is a God-awful mess that has been made of sacred ground.
the widely discussed 4th option
Professor Walt you seem to neglect the much debated (within Israel anyway) unilateral withdrawal and drawing of the border.
Again for others I am not advocating it. I simply point out that this has been a long standing option popularly voiced long before the Gaza withdrawal. From a US perspective I should think a more useful analysis would then be what would the American response be?
As for Yisrael Beiteinu it is far more of wild card then you indicate you understand. (For the record I am not remotely a supporter). They lean rightwards but defy the conventions of left and right in Israel. Calling Yisrael Beiteinu racist is simply a disservice and is routinely employed by the left in Israel so they don't have to debate the merits of Yisrael Beiteinu's platform or their appeal.
Yisrael Beiteinu's appeal not coincidentally has great traction in the outer areas of Israel that are most vulnerable, such as Ashdod, Ashkelon or Sderot where the Jews from Arab countries predominate. People who followed the elections would have noted some of the greatest vitriol for Yisrael Beiteinu was from Shas the religious Sephardic party (also a nominally right wing party).
Again I do not support Yisrael Beiteinu but for those who want to know who they are, I recommend reading what they say for themselves rather than rely on critics. http://www.yisraelbeytenu.com/
"Race" has become one of the most divisive issues in the conflict. Far too many people who should know much better are using it and now it is routinely used by those who have absolutely no idea what 'race' means. 'Race' is now largely employed by the most ignorant people who understand that differences are biologically hardwired. This can never help when people(s) need to compromise and find real common purpose.
Wow, an informed comment on Israel!
BC, it's nice to read an informed comment on Israel here, and especially that rarity of rarities: an accurate description of Yisrael Beitenu. Especially important is your correct remark that Lieberman doesn't fit easily into Israeli categories of left and right.
For whatever it's worth, I didn't support them this time because I didn't like their latest platform, though a lot of voters apparently did. I voted for them last time, when they ran (almost as successfully) on a platform of defining the borders demographically, along the lines publicly endorsed by that evil racist fanatic Henry Kissinger. Initially at least the re-defined borders would be between Israel and the PA. Given the emphasis on separation and the recognition of Palestinian aspirations ("Israel is our home; Palestine is theirs") it's clear that the eventual goal is a two-state solution.
Regarding Shas' vitriol for Yisrael Beitenu, I think a lot of it has to do with the latter's secularist platform, especially civil marriage.
I was commenting on Yisrael Beitenu not so much on Lieberman.
Like Kadima outgrew Ariel Sharon Yisrael Beitenu is too large now to simply be an extension of Lieberman.
There is of course a turf war between Shas and Yisrael Beitenu over civil marriage but Sephardic voters aren't that passionate over the civil marriage issue. I think the loss of seats Shas just experienced is testament to their real concerns about Yisrael Beitenu.
To get back on track my point here is that I see a lot of people, Mr. Walt and many outside commentators just taking at face value what is just political mudslinging in Israel.
For some perspective many of the same accusations of doom preceded Prime Minister Begin. Having said that Liebermanis no Begin.
Repeating I don't support Yisrael Beitenu but they are not the equivalent or flip side to Hamas. Yisrael Beitenu is committed to a solution (again the merits can be debated) for both peoples whereas Hamas is committed to nothing less than genocide.
Forcing Israel by way of Embargo to allow return of all refugees
Durable solution
What we are seeking is a durable solution, that will remove forever from the Middle East the prospect of terrible wars, intifadas and terror. If we had introduced this solution in, say 1965, we wouldn't have had 250.000 Palestinians and their leadership headed by Arafat fleeing the advancing Israelis in June 1967. They came to Jordan, where Arafat and his men got expelled in September 1970 (Black September). They came to Lebanon, where they seemingly had a negative influence on the civil war there. What is certain is that the civil war started in 1975, after they had arrived, - and their activities prompted Israel to invade in 1978 and again in 1982. In the latter more than 17.000 people died, most of them Palestinians. The israelis succeeded in expelleing Arafat to Tunis, but it was a Pyrrhus-victory, because he returned to Gaza City in Triumf in 1994, following the First Intifada and the Oslo peace process. But more alarmingly for the Israelis: While in Lebanon they encountered a formidable new foe, Hezbollah, set up in 1982 with the explicit purpose of driving the israelis out, which they succeeded doing in 2000.
So you see it is all wars and wars, and violence and blood, as long as this colony - with an inhabitable surface-area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland* - exists.
Correcting historic mistake
Therefore let us correct this historic mistake, and by the means of an Embargo force Israel to allow all the Palestinian refugees and their descendants back to the land they are named after. Thereafter they shall have a vote - under the supervision of the International Community - as to how they wish to be governed.
Any Jew who wishes to stay put should be allowed to do so, just like the Whites in South Africa can stay after the end of Apartheid in 1994. This is the hallmark for us in the West: Freedom of Choice. And as a matter of course, Israelis should be allowed to choose between: "Do you wish to stay under Arab Majority-rule, or do you prefer to seek new pastures?"
My bet is that many Israelis will choose other pastures. The argument about Israel being necessary as a refuge for Jews, no longer holds. Anti-semitism has been neglicable since WW2. Ironically where it has surfaced has been in connection with Israels actions. Be it its defeat of the combined Arab armies in 1948 and expulsion of 800.000 Arabs, or for example the brief outpour amongst immigrants from North Africa in France in 2002 in close correlation to events in the occupied territories, or today in response to Israels brutal war in Gaza. What is more, the preferred destination of many Jews will be the land of Freedom itself, - The United States.
I have met many Americans who categorically resist the idea hosting millions of former israelis, and I can well appreciate the tough luck. But in my view this would be the natural result and a fair and just outcome, which also can be supported in Realist thinking. According to Realist thinking, what you do has consequences, which you must pay the price for. So when you have been underwriting whatever Israel has done for these many years, you must take the consequence. And indeed, if past experiences are anything to go by, these people will prove to be an asset for The United States.
_____________
*) Documentation
..........Area..........Population
Israel: 20,770 km²......7,282,000
Negev*: ~ 13,000 km².......554,000
Israel
minus
Negev: ~7,770 km².......6,728,000
Delaware: 6,446 km²
Cecil County, Maryland: 1,083 km²
Other unexpected consequences of evicting Palestinians in 1967
Greatest terrorcampaign the world has ever seen
But we now know the price for expelling the Palestinian leadership in this way. The incident was the start of the greatest terrorcampaign the world have ever seen, far outdoing recent hysteria about - for the most part - non existing terror. The world saw airplane-hijacking for the first time on a grand scale, and 11 israeli atletes were taken hostage at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972 by the Palestinian group: "Black September". 'Only' two were killed by the hostage-takers - the remaining nine, five out of eight hostage-takers and one german police-officer were killed in the ensuing gun-fight, after two helicopters - provided under the promises of a free transfer - were attacked by an amateurish acting West-german police.
The motives for the Palestinians were as pointed out grief and anger of having been expelled from Palestine in 1967.
Further motives, that resonates among all Palestinians, includes anger, that Israel had taken Palestines place at the Olympics. Palestine had been a proud participant in the Olympic Games in the 20'ties and 30'ties, but from 1952 Israel took over its place (for the record: There were no Olympic Games in 1940 and 1944, and in 1948 the parties were at war)
Palestinian terror ended with prospect of state
In the middle of the Eighties, Palestinian International terror ended, one of the last spats being the hijacking on October 7, 1985 of "Archille Lauro" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Achille_Lauro) by members of The Palestine Liberationfront (PLF). With the onset of the First Intifada and the subsequent beginning of talks between the parties, resulting in the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and the return of Arafat in 1994, these International terror-incidents had all ended, showing in a Nutshell that terror is political motivated, and can be remedied by political negociations - and it shows the Peril for the rest of the world, when the Palestinian leadership are out.
Actually Palestinian relocation is the key. After all, if an estimated 750K Palestinians can break out of the border and take a mini tour of Egypt in January 08 then surely Egypt can re absorb their former colonists
Same for Jordan, in fact any of the 22 members of Arab League would greatly benefit from the assimilation of the most literate Arabs on the face of the earth. Since Palestinians have a history of voting in free, transparent elections their reunification with kindred nation states would be a stabilizing democratic influence of strategic proportions. Refugee status would be eliminated as millions of Palestinians become loyal productive citizens of the Middle East.
Reparations would be just and significant when apportioned from the five neighboring autocratic societies that have repeatedly attacked a functional democratic member of the UN and repeatedly lost
Equality. Regardless of your religion.
The answer is increasingly clear to millions of Americans.
Remember our civil rights movement. The oppression and disenfranchisement of African Americans was little in comparison to what non-Jews have suffered in the last hundred years in their Palestinian homeland.
Are you aware that the West Bank is also entirely enclosed, not only Gaza. These people lost their citizenship and homes because they were, and are, the wrong religion. Now they are not just segregated, but incarcerated and periodically culled.
Read the Federalist Papers (10 and 51) by James Madison. Uniting religious and political power produces oppression, which compels people to fight.
Americans will choose equality and freedom for all people, regardless of religion. This is post-Zionism.
What Palestinian in their right mind would support a two state solution after the conflict in Gaza? A "state" whose borders and airspace are controlled by Israel and where any small terrorist group could provoke a bombing raid hardly seems an improvement. The reality is that post Gaza the two state solution is dead.
However you interpret the recent events of Gaza how does a "Palestinian in their right mind" support the status quo?
What will American policy be when it makes no sense to talk about a two-state solution, because Israel effectively controls all of what we used to call Mandate Palestine?
Mandatory Palestine included what is now Jordan too.
A fifth idea (the fourth being BurningChrome correctly noting that the idea of pulling back and declaring borders is not unpopular in Israel) I have seen bandied about is the idea of federating the West Bank with Jordan and Gaza with Egypt, and placing them in control of security.
Egypt and Jordan hate the idea, so it would probably never happen, but it is more likely than Walt's ethnic cleansing scenario.
At the present time a Federation of Egypt and Gaza is very unlikely. A scenario whereby that could happens would be if the Islamic Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, Hamas is openly a part of the Islamic Brotherhood and also part of the Egyptian Brotherhood. Hamas is not a nationalist party, the Brotherhood would redraw all the borders not just Palestine. However that is a very scary scenario, at which point what happens to Gaza won't even be in the top 10 of Israel's or US concerns.
Jordan and the West Bank is a much more complicated relationship. Jordan only withdrew claim to the W. Bank under pressure. Many, most (I don't really know the stats) W. Bank residents still have Jordanian citizenship. When W. Bank Arabs pass thru Ben Gurion many have Jordanian Passports. I think the PA has asked Jordan to stop issuing the passports, and the PA can of course claim they have no knowledge or specifics on the matter. Jordan however clearly knows when it is issuing these Passports who they are issuing them to.
Palestinians in Jordan own the biggest banks, many of the largest companies and many of these same people have extensive family ties to the W. Bank ....nature abhors a vacuum.....it is not unreasonable to conclude in the event Israel withdrew Jordan will be drawn in officially or otherwise.
Prof Walt,could you please suppose you have no "state" in your conceptual tool-box for the sake of argument.
Now without "state" how would you describe the phenomena on hand with an alternative realistic concepts which you can clearly picture the facts to us.
No "state" Mate!
It is magically dieappeared from your tool-box and you are left with what you have to tackle the problem and suggest solutions, ways outs to us related to Jews and non-Jews issue.
Do us a favour Mate!
Do us a favour!
To stop this bosh-talk! Palavra!
Thank you Professor!
Grand Sen~or
By throwing around words like "fascist" and "apartheid", Walt has finally lost any semblance of credibility as an academic, and reveals himself to be a naked propagandist.
The situation in the Middle East, as Walt well knows, is complex. As the only Jewish State in a sea of Arab and Islamic States, Israel cannot permit a fifth column sworn to aid the destruction of a democratic State by force and violence. As a famous Justice once remarked, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
There is nothing fascist about solving such problems through population exchanges; India and Pakistan, though still in tension, have avoided what would have been continuous sectarian mass murder if not for separation. We have seen the consequences of failure to separate between the Hutus and Tutsi; with the Kurds in Iraq, and elsewhere. Such policies are neither ethnic cleansing nor apartheid if they are designed to separate two irreconcilable peoples into separate entities with suitable safeguards against violence.
The Middle East is still, except for Israel, a tribal area. The evidence is overwhelming, ranging from the Palestinian history (they tried to overthrow the government of Kuwait and got kicked out; they tried to overthrow the government of Jordan and got kicked out; they tried to overthrow the government of Lebanon and got kicked out) to the fundamental Arab proverb: "Me against my brother; me and my brother against my father; me, my brother and my father against my tribe; me and my tribe against the world".
That some (Kach, Yisroel Beitanyu) political parties see the India/Pakistan model as the only credible solution to continued Palestinian irredentism and violence is not surprising; it is hardly fascist or apartheid.
It is time for Walt to be seen, along with his fellow travelers (Walt is not the only one who can use McCarthyist analogies like "loyalty oath"), for the disgrace to fair-mindedness and academic values they are; there is no constitutional right for private entities such as Foreign Policy to provide him a further platform. Let him exercise his free speech elsewhere.
David Sternlight, Ph.D.
Los Angeles
Amazing that there are still apologists to be found for the only racially pure theocracy in the Middle East. Ein Volk, Ein Reich. . . just can't decide on the Ein Führer yet, eh?
It is becoming ever more obvious that Uncle Sam cannot forever support its little tyrant, and the little tyrant cannot exist without Uncle's largesse. When life becomes unpleasant, I'll bet many of those dual-citizens will return to their homes in the US, Europe and even Russia. It has always seemed to me that many Jews treat Israel as a sort of a summer camp anyway. This will leave the Palestinians, who have nowhere to go. And by default there will be a one-state solution.
By throwing around words like "fascist"
Maybe Prof. Walt should define what he means by "fascist", like I do. For example when I say secularo-fascist socio-politico-economic entity (SPEE) I mean a mono-law system which assumes all law-making power to herself and also assumes that she has all the right to impose her laws to other SPEEs. According to this definition of mine one may argue that the US, Israel and Iran are equally secularo-fascist, no matter what is the content of the laws they make and impose to other SPEEs, they are mono-law systems. Maybe Prof. Walt means something similar. You have to ask him to clarify what he means before jumping into conclusions.
Grand Sen~or
By throwing around words like "fascist" and "apartheid", Walt has finally lost any semblance of credibility as an academic, and reveals himself to be a naked propagandist.
If Israel ends up forcing the West Bank Palestinians into limited-area enclaves separated by security barriers, with no control over their own security, water, and such, then that is Apartheid. No amounts of "Waaaaah, Walt called me a fascist!" will change that.
The situation in the Middle East, as Walt well knows, is complex. As the only Jewish State in a sea of Arab and Islamic States, Israel cannot permit a fifth column sworn to aid the destruction of a democratic State by force and violence. As a famous Justice once remarked, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Are you talking about the Arab Israelis, or the Palestinians?
There is nothing fascist about solving such problems through population exchanges; India and Pakistan, though still in tension, have avoided what would have been continuous sectarian mass murder if not for separation. . . .
Such policies are neither ethnic cleansing nor apartheid if they are designed to separate two irreconcilable peoples into separate entities with suitable safeguards against violence.
Please. If they involve one side forcibly expelling all the inhabitants of a land because they don't or won't swear ideology to an exclusive, ethnoreligious concept of a state, then that is ethnic cleansing. By the way, the post-Independence population exchange is not a positive outcome - what would have better would have been for India to stay as one state.
The Middle East is still, except for Israel, a tribal area.
This is rich, coming from someone arguing for the Jewish Israelis to expell the rest of the Palestinians in order to lay claim to a certain land on tribalistic grounds.
As long as Israel calls itself a "Jewish state", it has a tribal component, just like its neighbors.
It is time for Walt to be seen, along with his fellow travelers (Walt is not the only one who can use McCarthyist analogies like "loyalty oath"), for the disgrace to fair-mindedness and academic values they are; there is no constitutional right for private entities such as Foreign Policy to provide him a further platform. Let him exercise his free speech elsewhere.
Free speech protects everyone's rights to speak unless it directly incites violence. Try again.
David Sternlight, Ph.D.
Los Angeles
Did you get your Ph.D (assuming you actually have one - the Internet is full of bullshitters) in Shrill Stupidity?
It has also been a long-practiced Palestinian confidence trick to accuse Israel of what they themselves are guilty of. True Apartheid, and against Jews, exists in Gaza; Jews literally cannot survive there; their holy sites have been destroyed by the Arabs there; they cannot own property there. Many more draconian anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli policies are practiced there and enforced by murder even of Arabs who disagree with Hamas policies and aims. Gaza is "Judenrein"; Israel is not "Arabrein".
t has also been a long-practiced Palestinian confidence trick to accuse Israel of what they themselves are guilty of. True Apartheid, and against Jews, exists in Gaza; Jews literally cannot survive there; their holy sites have been destroyed by the Arabs there; they cannot own property there. Many more draconian anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli policies are practiced there and enforced by murder even of Arabs who disagree with Hamas policies and aims. Gaza is "Judenrein"; Israel is not "Arabrein".
Do you even know what Apartheid is? Oh, and by the way, pointing out the problems in others doesn't change the fact that the Cantonization process taking place in the West Bank amounts to creeping Apartheid.
It is Hamas who are the real fascists; they murder opposition Arabs routinely, operate against their own people by terror; steal UN aid at gunpoint.
In contrast Israel has protected Arab political parties with seats in Parliament; the Israeli Supreme Court recently overturned the decertification of an Arab party preaching violence against Israel; the Courts have frequently (and effectively) overruled the government even on national security matters such as the route of the defensive wall; the government practices what can only be called a pro-Arab policy about the destruction of illegal construction.
No country in the world has suffered from the same degree of oppressive meddling by the rest of the world as has Israel. If the USA had formed it's western states during the same time-frame as Israel has spent in survival mode, our own country would look very different.
Bye-bye California, Texas and any territory won through battle. Mexico must be appeased through land reparations. We probably didn't pay a fair enough price to Russia for Alaska, or to France for the Louisiana Purchase, either, so there goes half the country. Do you suppose if we went back far enough and subjected all of US history to the same standards the world has imposed upon Israel that we would have any nation at all? I don't suppose, I know. Israel is doomed if this meddling continues.
Using the same "diplomacy" that now works against the integrity and stability of Israel, apply it instead to the "Palestinian" groups. The world should simply show them the door - the exit door - out of Israel, territories and all.
No country in the world has suffered from the same degree of oppressive meddling by the rest of the world as has Israel. If the USA had formed it's western states during the same time-frame as Israel has spent in survival mode, our own country would look very different.
Your point? Frankly, the Mexican-American War and the resulting treaty was a joke, the international equivalent of a mugging - the US provoked a war with Mexico, then took half of Mexico's territory as a prize, giving them an amount of money in return equal to less than one year's worth of the Mexican governmental budget. It's over and done with, the parties involved dead, and the main actors have accepted the outcome, but I'm not foolish enough to argue that it was anything other than grossly immoral.
Using the same "diplomacy" that now works against the integrity and stability of Israel, apply it instead to the "Palestinian" groups. The world should simply show them the door - the exit door - out of Israel, territories and all.
Why? So Israel can enjoy the fruits of its conquest? I don't see why the world should give a shit whether Israel chokes on the fruit of its conquest.
...a sinister story, an enlightened paraphrase;
..."Frankly, The Arab-Israeli war and the resulting vanquishing of the Arabs was a joke, the international equivalent of a mugging-gone-bad. The Arabs provoked a war with Israel, Israel won, then took the territory from which Arabs attacked. It's over and done with, the parties involved dead and the main actors, other than the Arabs, have accepted the outcome, but I'm not foolish enough to argue that it was anything other than grossly immoral of the aggressor..."
Israel cannot survive the likes of you.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(74)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE