Israel won't annex the territories (implicit in your "apartheid" scenario). IMO, the purpose in mentioning it is to inject the term "apartheid" into the debate.

If you knew anything about Israel, you'd realize that the population would shift dramatically and quickly to the left if presented with a so-called "partner for peace". The Palestinians had a great opportunity to show how they could govern and be responsible neighbors after being handed Gaza. And they showed it.

Now, expect to see the status quo for a while. This will happen regardless of how involved the administration is and how much pressure they bring to bear. Israel simply is not prepared to hand over the West Bank and won't be for quite a while IMO. I imagine the Israelis will wait to see what the Palestinians do in Gaza.

And I am not one of those who thinks the Palestinians are stupid or tries to infantilize them. They do more than simply react, and understand very well how their behavior influences Israeli public opinion. Admittedly, they will have a tougher time voicing moderate or dissenting opinions now that the thugs of Hamas are in charge, but (hopefully, but not a certitude) eventually there will be elections and the Palestinians will get a chance to choose again.

It is this scenario that has motivated groups like J Street, and more hardline organizations like AIPAC ought to be thinking hard about it too and reconsidering their own positions.

Which specific positions should AIPAC be reconsidering?

How exactly does the evacuation of settlements get harder with every settler? Taking your 500,000 figure as given, why is it politically all that much harder than, say, 250,000? Especially considering a fact which I don't think you've mentioned: over the last couple decades Israelis have steadily become less sympathetic to the settlers, and more resentful of them, regardless of any general "move to the right." At the same time the settlers increase, their popular support decreases. (I'd also argue that Israeli public opinion on strategy has been very stable since October 2000, despite large changes in tactics. In that sense there's been no move to the right since 2000; and ideology-wise, public opinion has been stable for much longer than that.)

Agreed that the "apartheid" scenario is worrisome, but I think it's often exaggerated. (This is probably the only case where I'm more optimistic than Mr. Walt.) Here's a question I've never seen asked, much less answered: if this is such a dangerous threat to Israel, then why doesn't Fatah drop the Palestinian-state demand immediately and demand a one-state solution now, today, just as they did in the past? They would be assured of international support, excepting of course the US and probably Germany. Once they get a binational state they'd be a clear majority from the beginning because lots of Jews would flee beforehand. Why wait? Especially if it's already so hard to effect a two-state solution?

Keep in mind also that the two-state solution will itself likely bring about a serious "anti-apartheid" movement directed at the state of Israel. Once the territories are liberated, the entire liberation struggle will focus on the state of Israel. The most likely demand, which will be picked up by Europe and most of the rest of the world, will be that Israel renounce its apartheid self-definition as a Jewish state and become "a state of all its citizens" as South Africa did, and/or give its Arab population a large degree of autonomy. Whatever the exact demand, the apartheid rhetoric will be applied to Israel proper.

this outcome is so at odds with American values

Prof. Walt means this outcome is in contradiction with the Constitution of the US. And there are many other solutions out there which are in contradiction with the Constitution of the US.
Prof. Walt doesn't dare to spit out the word "constitution", maybe he has a fobia against the word, like some said "What constitution??! FP has nothing to do with constitution!!";->
So he chooses this vague expression

...American values

Can you give us an account of those values Professor?! Which seems very, very important to shape the FP of the US according to you. Are they State secrets or something?!

But if an FP scholar recompose the constitution of the US for a TE, then there might be solutions blooming out:

to walk, chew gum, juggle three eggs, compose a string quartet, dance a jig (or if you prefer, the hora), cook a five-course banquet, rotate the tires, wind-surf, and play slide guitar -- all at once.

and best of it not as a one-man-band imagined by Prof. Walt, but as an operetta;->

I know, one of these days some people who are courageous to use intellect are going to see what I am trying to show here and commit this TE. If you had the same background of knowledge I have, you would also know.

Grand Sen~or

"Obama's team doesn't just need to prove they can walk and chew gum at the same time; sometimes it looks like they need to walk, chew gum, juggle three eggs, compose a string quartet, dance a jig (or if you prefer, the hora), cook a five-course banquet, rotate the tires, wind-surf, and play slide guitar -- all at once."

But of course, it's all Bush's fault. As in, the people running Bush 43's FP were just a bunch of misguided incompetents, right? I mean all they did in 8 years was to make the world oh so much more difficult to run. Because everything was running so smoothly in 2001 when they came to power. However will Obama's team be able to pull it off?

I'm afraid that Neve Gordon's commentary, like so much of the commentary we read on Israel these days here in the States, is about a decade out of date. We are no longer living in 1995.

Gordon represents the amazing shrinking Israeli left, which has strong ties to the West and whose views, while congenial to many of us, are vastly overrepresented in the United States as an expression of mainstream Israeli opinion. The Israeli left and center-left seem not to grasp just how marginal they have become in their own country. Americans will be led astray and into utter failure if they continue to embrace the vague wishful thinking offered up in Gordon's Nation piece as a practical plan.

We now face a landscape in which Likud, long the benchmark of ultra-zionist right wing rejectionism and militarism in Israel, is the new "center" in the Israeli spectrum, and Kadima, the party of the hawk Ariel Sharon, is seen as the new "left". The former mainstream center-left is now the far left. there is a vibrant new right which is even further right than Likud.

The Likud platform is clear in its outright rejection of a Palestinian state, and in its affirmation of Israeli title to the entire West Bank as part of the Land of Israel:

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

Yisrael Beiteinu claims to support the creation of a Palestinian state, but their plan calls for the annexation of so much of the West Bank as to render a Palestinian state utterly non-viable. YB's Palestinian state would just be another stop-gap scam on the way to further pressure, economic constriction, Palestinian depopulation and conquest.

Kadima, for what it's worth, also regards the West Bank as part of the Land of Israel, but is willing to trade away some portions of it, outside the large settlement blocks, in exchange for a peace deal. It apparently regards this as a magnanimous concession of what is rightfully Israeli territory. Kadima very firmly opposes the division of Jerusalem, which it believes belongs to the Jewish people and must stay with the Jewish people.

Gordon presents the standard two-state solution package that has been bandied about for years, but gives not the slightest hint how to accomplish that steeply uphill and increasingly illusory task. Where is the Israeli constituency that has both the inclination and political strength to carry this plan forward? Unless the United States is prepared to apply much more stringent and punitive sanctions than most Americans yet realize, Israel's progressive colonization and eventual annexation of the West Bank cannot be stopped. And yet it is virtually impossible to imagine the United States Congress applying any sanctions of any kind whatsoever to Israel.

Granted, I don't know Israel first-hand. But from were I sit in the United States, Gordon represents a dwindling cultural elite that consoles itself with the fantasy that the colonization of the West Bank is just some political nuisance created by a "sizable minority" of obnoxious settlers, rather than an expression of the very aims of the State of Israel and the views of the majority of the Israeli people. The ultra-nationalist right has now captured Israel's political culture, its youth and its armed forces.

These two paragraphs in the above are not my words, but are taken from the Likud platform:

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state."

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state."

I'm curious as to whether they (Likud) are simply in denial about the fact that the total Arab population in Greater Israel (as they would no doubt refer to Israel plus the Occupied Territories) will outnumber them in 20-30 years, or whether they're hoping that the settlers will eventually push the Palestinians out of the West Bank.

The latter strikes me as a futile hope (at least if they want to hold on to any international support, including from the US). Eventually, the Palestinian Arab population will be in enclaves with such high populations that it will be impossible to displace them without it looking like ethnic cleansing. These enclaves, filled with growing, youthful, heavily unemployed people, will be matchboxes for rioting and violence.

Of course, there was a stay of execution, of sorts, for Israel's "Jewishness" when the large mass of Russian immigrants came over. Perhaps they're hoping for another miracle. Either that, or they think they have the resources to keep the Arab populations of Israel pinned up forever in the enclaves.

or and the majority of the settlers could actually be incorporated inside a redrawn border with the Palestinians receiving land of equal value in some sort of swap.

I'd have to see a map of this, Dr. Walt. Giving a potential Palestine land in the Negev basically gives them open ground into Israel proper, and I can see a one-to-one trade turning the border area into a mass of contested patches.

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values.

"Gaza"? Likud needs to update their website.

I can understand having settlements in "Judea and Samaria", as they are fond of calling the West Bank (the irony, of course, was that Samaria was heavily inhabited by non-Jewish people the last time there was a significant Jewish population in that area of the world), but why Gaza? There's nothing of religious consequence there, and putting settlements in Gaza just gives the Gazans more targets.

Gordon presents the standard two-state solution package that has been bandied about for years, but gives not the slightest hint how to accomplish that steeply uphill and increasingly illusory task.

It's still possible that you could negotiate an autonomous Palestinian state, and you could theoretically buy out most of the settlers (most of them are in the West Bank because of subsidized housing and job opportunities).

1) Neve Gordon typifies the Israeli left (not to be confused with a liberal, nothing in common), unable to win elections they immediately start campaigning abroad to force their agenda on Israel. Frequently well meaning what they do is of incalculable destruction. To that end Neve Gordon vilifies the government and many of his characterisations and conclusions are simply false.

2) The only thing Neve Gordon gets basically correct is the actual outlines of an agreement. There just isn't that much room to manoeuvre most Israelis have come to understand and accept this. I don't see a similar conclusion in the Palestinian media. The biggest obstacle not Jerusalem but the attempt to force a hostile Arab population into Israel, the so called 'right of return'. So called because Israel is a sovereign state and it is an absolute of sovereignty that a state can determine immigration.

Resolution 194 which is frequently cited in fact does not grant any such 'right' and more importantly 194 is only a General Assembly resolution, it is non binding and even were it to include such a 'right' well beyond the scope of the scope of the General Assembly.

Furthermore the controlling resolutions all come from the Security Council when passed under chapter 7 and they supercede any General Assembly resolutions. The controlling resolutions as accepted by the parties, Israel and the PA, are Resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242 explicitly states a "a just settlement of the refugee problem". It is important is to understand this provision applied equally to the Jewish refugees who were violently expelled and dispossessed and now make up the majority of the Israeli Jewish population.

3) Poll after poll has demonstrated overwhelming support in Israel for a solution based on the predicable outlines. At crunch time make no mistake it will not be a particularly courageous act by any politician in Israel to embrace it. Here I particularly refer here to Netanyahu who is about as opportunistic a politician as you can find.

The real problem and one that simply is neglected by almost commentators is that nothing is being done in the Arab world to prepare them for this outcome. Mr. Walt as so many others do trumpet the Saudi/Arab Peace plan.

In a part of the world, this includes Egypt a country Israel is supposed to be at with, there is no free press and most press are actually organs of the state, all you see is unapologetic and the most crude and vile antisemitism (e.g. prime time shows depicting Jews killing children to drink the blood). Routine references to the Protocols of Zion, Koranic citations that Jews descend from apes and pigs may seem silly to more sophisticated western audiences. The demonization (a part of the world where demons have a long history and are seen as real), constant agitation and incitement, portraying Jews as existing outside the human race is contradictory to any sincere peaceful intentions.

These attitudes aren't restricted to the wider Arab media but are symptomatic of the Palestinian Media as well and are integrated into the very earliest child education across the Middle East.

Until fundamental attitudes are changed, the Saudi/Arab Peace plan is largely an empty gesture and a way around Resolution 242. A real peace agreement requires a sincere acknowledgement that Jews have equal rights including the right of self determination, Israel has a right to exist not simply we can't destroy you so a begrudging acceptance that you are there.

In a part of the world, this includes Egypt a country Israel is supposed to be at with, there is no free press and most press are actually organs of the state, all you see is unapologetic and the most crude and vile antisemitism (e.g. prime time shows depicting Jews killing children to drink the blood). Routine references to the Protocols of Zion, Koranic citations that Jews descend from apes and pigs may seem silly to more sophisticated western audiences. The demonization (a part of the world where demons have a long history and are seen as real), constant agitation and incitement, portraying Jews as existing outside the human race is contradictory to any sincere peaceful intentions.

Unless this incites actual action against Israel, it is more or less irrelevant. The US, for example, has had relatively stable relations with states whose populaces had or have largely negative views of the US. Turkey is one example, Egypt another, the Soviet Union before the end of the Cold War another, Pakistan yet another (the relationship goes back to the Cold War), and so forth.

The real danger of settlements lies not only in the vast number of (illegal) houses and occupants, but also in the fact that "one-for-one" deals are not necessarily fair if they are predicated solely on equally-sized land packages. Water and arable land are key to the viability of any future Palestinian state, and currently many settlements sit on these valuable resources. Allowing settlements to exist (and expand) is commensurate to more than just land theft...any future deal must adequately address the issues of resources as well.

Prof Walt, thank you for raising these issues, your commentary is insightful and interesting

You don't make sense. Americans who are "Zionists" are not bigoted towards Arabs, but those who are not "Zionists" are, because of "Zionist" propaganda?

Bottom line, your insinuation that we Americans are, as a group, bigots is bigoted in itself. As is the old "Zionists" control the media canard.

The two-state option that is most appealing to me defines the 67 borders as borders, but allows minority CURRENT residents to remain as citizens of the state of the new jurisdiction.

It assumes modern basis of title and prohibition against prejudicial criteria for title, and requires perfection of title by compensation to get a perfected starting point.

Israeli settlers that want to be "Israeli" rather than Palestinian would have an opportunity to move back to Israel (in exchange for peace and recognition).

The status would preserve a compelling Jewish majority in Israel that is not an existential threat, and a compelling Palestinian majority in Palestine.

The current prevailing logic about Jewish minorities in Palestine would leave a truly ethnically cleansed setting. Not a 80/20 relationship but a 99.8/.2 % relationship with institutionalized persecution as law (in Palestine).

There are only a finite number of options for Israel/Palestine.

The single-state solution would likely yeild only a minority that support civil non-nationalist governance. My sense is that approximately 40% of those from river to sea would prefer a civilist cosmopolitan democratic single-state. That leaves large minorities committed to their ethnic nationalism, and willing to go to brutal civil war to realize it.

The two-state solution leaves optimally strong national majorities, and diverse and significant and accepted minorities.

In the states, even as power is divided nearly 50/50 between republican and democrat (more democrat now), that condition does not result in civil war because of the confidence in the transfer of limited power from administration to adminstration, and the lack of ideological or emotional rage.

That is NOT the case in Israel/Palestine.

Those that propose a single-state do so largely in ideological anger at Israeli dominance, and strain their commitment to a mutually respectful single state.

Sadly, many Palestinian advocates willingly ignore that Palestinian law (even under Fatah) continues to include prejudicial prohibitions against Jews purchasing land in the West Bank.

As a representative from the free world, more specific Denmark - with virtually no Israel Lobby, because they concentrate on Israels only ally on the face of the Earth - it is a pleasure for me, to have this opportunity to share my views on Israel/Palestine with my in this regard - unfortunately, less informed American friends.
If and when the American public gets as informed, I have no doubt they will act forcefully and determined, to put an end to what is in effect the worlds last colony - set up in somebodys elses country, in the middle of Arabia, no less!
A country with an inhabitable surface-area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland * with the worlds fourth largest stockpile of nuclear weapons - well if that aint nuts.....what is?
The way this should be brought about is by allowing all Palestinians and their descendants to return back to the land they are named after, and thereupon have a vote, about how they wish to be governed. You cannot have it more democratic than that! One man, one vote. If the current masters in The Holy Land will not allow this, then America should flex it muscles, by holding back its 3 billion Dollars of taxpayers money a year, and a worldwide ban of all landing rights for Israels crafts could follow, until it complies.
The transformation to the eventual Arab Majority-rule - where any jew who so wishes can stay put, just like the Whites can stay in South Africa after the end of Apartheid in 1994- should be overseen by the International Community, and Israels terrible weapons should be transferred to the United States for scrapping, just like South Africas nuclear programme was given up and Ukraine's nuclear weapons transferred to Russia in the beginning of the 1990'ties.
This is the wish of the majority of the worlds peoples, - who often themselves have grave experiences with colonialism. Americas support for the colony in Arabia is a serious anormaly for the country whose ideals helped bring an end to colonialism, and it is my hope that America under President Obama, will bring about a correction of this historic mistake.
_____________
*) 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: 1,083 km²
(Maryland)

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Sorensen. The Palestinian people must be allowed an equal stake in whatever entity ends up existing where Israel currently sits.

Moreover, how on earth do you expect any two-state situation (for it is no 'solution') to play out? Without significant reparations the Palestinians will continue to fight in whatever ways they can against their oppressors and assailants. Significant reparations would need to include a complete removal of settlements, financial compensation at least as much as the value of lands stolen in 1947, equal access to water supplies (which the Israelis will never allow) -- and the list goes on.

Basically, unless they are given what they need to live not only in peace, but to prosper economically then the Palestinians will continue to fight -- and they will be vindicated. As far as the Israelis are concerned, a two-state situation with vastly unacceptable concessions is an ideal situation because then when the Palestinians inevitably attack, there will be less talk of 'humanitarian crisis'. Indeed the creation of a state can allow them to avoid much of the 'grey area' issues that currently mitigate their barbarism, even if only slightly.

So, the inevitable outcome of a two-state situation is that the Palestinians either have to accept unfair terms (which the multiplicity of groups there will not do) or, once classified as an attacking 'state', they will be subject to an even more violent military assault than that which we have recently witnessed.

In light of this, how can a two-state situation be at all acceptable?

It is hard for me to swallow any type of apartheid comparision while Hamas is in control of Gaza. The ability of Hamas to fire thousands of rockets at its neighbor is indicative of a degree of autonomy that nears statehood. They are excercising a near monopoly over the use of force within Gaza. A far cry from apartheid.

More importantly though, the apartheid comparision is also difficult to take because the autochtonous Africans of South Africa did not turn down offers of statehood. Of course, the Palestinians were able to negotiate over statehood during the Oslo process. Arafat turned down the offer and did not make a counter offer. The Palestinians then decided, perhaps in a tactical move, to launch a massive wave of suicide bombings. The Palestinians made choices during the negotiations and they therefore are also responible for the consequences for those choices. Few would assert that the autochtonous population of South Africa was responsible for the apartheid regime.

I do agree with Walt that the direction of things, the righward shift of Israeli politics and the strengthening of Hamas relative to Fatah, does not give us much cause for hope. However, I do understand why some Israelis may have turned to the right. The Kadima party was formed in an effort by Ariel Sharon to continue the process of unilaterally giving land to the Palestinians. Kadima was then elected after campaigning to continue the process of unilaterally withdrawing from settlements in West Bank. Similarly, in 2000, the Labor Party decided to pull Israeli forces out of southern Lebanon. After Israel left Lebanon they recieved rockets from Hizballah in return. Gaza is a similar story in which Israel's withdrawal is followed by attacks. Therefore, I could understand why many Israelis are skeptical when their leaders tell them that giving land to the Palestinians will bring them security.

Eh, I was really only asking for lip service to the fact that the Jews who were ethnically cleansed deserve equal consideration to those Palestinians who lost their homes. Hardly obstructionist (not that I'm in a position to obstruct anything, in any case).

Speaking of obstructionist...anyone who demands a solution that leads to Israel not being a Jewish state is being exactly that. A demand for mass Palestinian return to Israel proper is one. It's a non-starter, the Israelis will never accept it, and a deal will never get done until the Palestinians drop the demand. It is the one real sticking point (other than the minor inconvenient fact that the government of Gaza wants to kill all Jews). Israel has already made an acceptable offer on Jerusalem, and borders are the easy part.

Ditto on a "one-State solution". It is another non-starter for Israelis, and anyone who insists on it is being obstructionist.

This is what made it so troubling when Abbas refused to recognize that Israel is a Jewish state at the Annapolis summit.

On not accepting a two state solution...Israel offered just that in 2000/01 (see my link above to the Saudi website describing the offer Barak made, make sure to read the entire lengthy excerpt), the Palestinians rejected it. For the record, I agree that the offer should have been made, and I think it should have been accepted. Also for the record, I agree that the Israelis are culpable for any ethnic cleansing they did. The offer included a $30 billion dollar reparation fund for the refugees and their descendents.

You keep setting up this strawman about who was "wronger". I never said anything about that, it is entirely your construct and clearly something you are quite focused on since you keep bringing it up even when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.