- FEBRUARY 10, 2010
-
-
AFPAK
Why We Shouldn't Listen to Gen. McChrystal
-
MEIN KAMPF
Discrediting Hitler's Tome
-
IRAN
Regime Change Isn't Coming
On Agha and Malley
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 4:14 PM
Share
I didn't know what to make of the frustratingly ambiguous op-ed by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in Tuesday's New York Times, published under the title "The Two-State Solution Doesn't Solve Anything." (Today's Letters column contains an interesting set of reactions). I've discussed it with a number of friends and colleagues since then, and I'm still not sure what Agha and Malley were trying to tell us. Nonetheless, here are a few tentative reactions.
First, as Helena Cobban notes on her own blog, the headline the Times editors attached to the piece is actually quite misleading. Agha and Malley did not say that a two-state solution would not solve "anything"; their much-less controversial point is that a two-state solution would not solve everything. In particular, a territorial agreement establishing two states would not by itself resolve the conflicting views that Israelis and Palestinians have about the origins of the conflict. Israelis focus on the Arab rejection of the 1947 UN partition plan and demand Arab recognition of Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state in Palestine; Arabs focus on the dispossession and dislocation of Palestinians in 1948 and after, a process that continues up to today. Agha and Malley worry that these conflicting narratives about the origins of the conflict will remain in place even if clear borders were agreed upon and the Palestinians got a state of their own. In their words, "two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored." Maybe so, but that's a far cry from the headline that the Times chose to use.
Second, the timing of this piece isn't helpful -- especially given that misleading headline -- because it can only serve to slow progress towards the admittedly imperfect-but-still-best option of "two states for two peoples." In fact, it's worse than that, because momentum is presently in the other direction. The status quo isn't fixed, and a two-state solution gets a little bit harder to achieve with each passing day. That's why the Obama administration has been trying to achieve a settlement freeze while simultaneously trying to restart meaningful negotiations; they understand that continuing to expand the settlements just makes it harder to reach a deal (which is precisely what the people doing the expanding seem to want).
Third, I was struck by one unambiguous statement in the article -- namely, their claim that Hamas has gone beyond "hinting" that it might acquiesce in Israel's de facto existence and resign itself to establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. In their words, "this sentiment has now grown from hint to certitude." Given that Malley has reportedly met with Hamas leaders in the context of his work with the International Crisis Group, that is a remarkable assertion, and I wish they had spelled it out the evidence for it in more depth.
Fourth, to me, the most significant lines in the entire essay were the last two, where they write "the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel." Again, they didn't explain what they meant by this, so it's hard to know what they were trying to say. The implication, however, is that Israel still has to decide what kind of state it is going to be. Will it be a modern secular democracy with a certain Jewish character, but where non-Jews are fully equal citizens both de jure and de facto? If so, then two states will work, and the two conflicting narratives about the past could gradually cease to matter very much. In the most optimistic scenario, the whole sorry history of the Zionist-Arab conflict might eventually be regarded as a painful historical episode but not part of anyone's future agenda, much as Alsace-Lorraine eventually ceased to be an issue between France and Germany. Or will Israel continue to pursue the dream of Greater Israel, increasingly fueled by ethno-religious claims and the growing political power of religious extremists? If so, then it will become an apartheid state and will eventually face a Palestinian struggle for democratic rights. Again: what sort of state will it become? Needless to say, these different visions will have far-reaching implications for relations between Israel and its neighbors, the rest of the world, and between Israel and the Jewish diaspora. Again, I wish Agha and Malley had been less coy in raising this important set of issues.
Finally, by far the most frustrating part of the essay was the complete absence of any prescriptions: what do Agha and Malley think that Israel, the Palestinians, the United States, or the international community should DO at the present juncture? And that brings me back to a question I've raised before: if the two-state solution fails, what then?
Uriel Sinai/Getty Images
It didn't seem so ambiguous to me.
In their eyes, to accept Israel as a Jewish state would legitimize the Zionist enterprise that brought about their tragedy. It would render the Palestinian national struggle at best meaningless, at worst criminal.
Really?? Recognizing two states for two peoples would render their own national struggle meaningless?
The reason for that is simple - it is because their national struggle is not about creating a state in the West Bank and Gaza. It is why we have seen them refuse numerous offers for a state, it is why we have seen Gaza turned into a staging ground for attacks rather than a productive proto-state, and it is why we have seen the uncompromising language we have come out of the Fatah congress. (Their pre-conditions for talking are such obvious non-starters that it is remarkable that anyone would even play along with the farce.)
What Agha and Malley are saying is that there is nothing Israel can offer to satisfy the Palestinians, and so the title is accurate. Nothing will change if the Palestinians still feel aggrieved and continue to press for more after the land is divided into two states.
There is a lot of meat in this op-ed and I am just scratching the surface. People familiar with Walt will recognize this truth - the fact that he couldn't find anything to excoriate Israel with and is treating the essay so gingerly shows that it really reflects poorly on the Palestinians.
yup, it always comes down to the same old thing...
To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948.
what right did europeans have to move to palestine and terrorize hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and land?
The Right of Conquest, of course. We don't really consider that legitimate in this day and age, but it wasn't entirely gone at that time - several of the European powers were still trying to hold on to the empires they'd conquered, and Arabs were generally considered to be either assets to be manipulated or enemies to be suppressed and killed.
i guess we could give the palestinians an air force, a navy...
...and enough nukes to ensure nuclear parity with the israelis, then give the palestinians five or ten years of training, then stand back and let 'em duke it out.
i mean, seeing as how we've abandoned our morals, that seems to be the logical thing to do...
oh! i forgot... we're supposed to abandon our morals in defense of israel...
in that case, i guess we could just nuke the palestinians and be done with it.
what the hell's the use of benevolent global hegemony...
...nuke primacy and abandoning your morals if you cant commit nuclear genocide once in a while?
david, you said
Really?? Recognizing two states for two peoples would render their own national struggle meaningless?
no, i do not believe that is what anyone said. you are replacing 'accept Israel as a Jewish state' with recognizing 2 states. the requirement to 'recognize' israel 'as a jewsih state' is new. it was not a requirement of jordan. recognizing israel is all that is necessary diplomatically. requesting a recognition 'as jewish state' is unnecessary and creates an unnecessary burden. it is just a new roadblock created by israeli politicians to make the process more convoluted.
you are replacing 'accept Israel as a Jewish state' with recognizing 2 states. the requirement to 'recognize' israel 'as a jewsih state' is new.
Not new, just made more explicit. All of this peace processing is based on two states for two peoples. As Agha and Malley note, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state implicitly accepts that it will not be flooded with Palestinians, and that is the real sticking point (and also something that Fatah just voted as being non-negotiable).
Read Agha and Malley's statement again:
"In their eyes, to accept Israel as a Jewish state would legitimize the Zionist enterprise that brought about their tragedy. It would render the Palestinian national struggle at best meaningless, at worst criminal."
If the Palestinian national struggle is about getting a state in the West Bank and Gaza, how does mouthing the words that Israel is a Jewish state render that struggle meaningless?
It really depends on what that struggle actually is, and the answer is simple - the Palestinian national struggle isn't about having two states for two peoples. It is about having either one or two states for the Palestinians.
As for this:
requesting a recognition 'as jewish state' is unnecessary and creates an unnecessary burden. it is just a new roadblock created by israeli politicians to make the process more convoluted.
I don't see how asking the Palestinians to mouth some words, assuming that their goals are only the West Bank and Gaza, is all that much of a burden. You call it a roadblock, but it only serves as one because of the intransigence of the Palestinians. It doesn't have to be.
And from the way they reacted to the request - immediately, violently, and after reflection enshrining it into Fatah principles - tells me this isn't a negotiating ploy but a true red line for them.
There is an easy way for the Palestinians to freeze settlement growth, get half of Jerusalem, get tens of billions in compensation for the refugees, and get a land for themselves. Stop looking backwards, look forwards, put their children's and grandchildren's well being before their own pride, and make a deal. If it's not everything they want, so what.
"the intransigence of the Palestinians"
.
so it's "intransigent" to recognize and resist injustice.
"intransigent" defined: characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude
so anybody who recognizes and resists injustice is an extremist.
very good.
i guess, once you've abandoned your morals...
...maybe injustice could become a virtue.
I don't see how asking the Palestinians to mouth some words, assuming that their goals are only the West Bank and Gaza, is all that much of a burden.
Because it potentially puts the Israeli Arabs (many of whom think of themselves as Palestinians) in a bad spot. If Israel is a "Jewish state", then what are they? Second-class citizens? Residents who can get their citizenship revoked at any time, and their rights constricted?
You can say, "Well, Israel can be a Jewish state yet still have equal rights for non-Jews", but history is not really friendly to that idea. Pakistan, for example, was originally meant by Jinnah as both a state for muslims and a secular state where citizens were equal and Pakistani regardless of religion, and we've seen where that contradiction ultimately led.
tells me this isn't a negotiating ploy but a true red line for them.
No, but why should they give up that concession at the very beginning, when Israel won't even acknowledge the right of a Palestinian state to exist (much less agree to a pre-set borders, like Israel demands that the Palestinians acknowledge the current Israeli borders even before the negotiations begin).
Stop looking backwards, look forwards, put their children's and grandchildren's well being before their own pride, and make a deal.
Why should they trust the Israelis to keep the deal? This is the same Israel, remember, that allowed the West Bank (you know, that part of the Territories that was supposed to become part of an independent Palestine) to be flooded with settlers during the 1990s, all while negotiations were on-going. The same Israel that treats them like shit in the Occupied Territories, and at any time can simply seize their land, and give it to settlers, with little in the way of redress (and when they do get legal redress, the Israeli government usually ignores it, even when it comes from their own Supreme Court).
You're asking a lot from the Palestinians (who are no saints themselves, but angry, frustrated, and distrustful). You're asking them to give up on the refugees' claims, unrealistic as they are, without any real guarantee of what will happen to them if they don't go to Israel (and witness Jordan, which has begun revoking the citizenship of many Palestinians there in the hopes of kicking them back into Palestine or Israel). You're asking them to trust their oppressor, who at best has looked the other way while they were kicked off their land and attacked, and at worst actively assisted in the process.
Because it potentially puts the Israeli Arabs (many of whom think of themselves as Palestinians) in a bad spot. If Israel is a "Jewish state", then what are they? Second-class citizens? Residents who can get their citizenship revoked at any time, and their rights constricted?
This is basically a non-sequitor. Israel is a Jewish state. Whether the Palestinians recognize that or not.
The request for recognition is aimed at getting all issues and claims in the conflict resolved. It won't change reality. (Which is not to say that your hyperbolic questions reflect reality.)
Inasmuch as it furthers a resolution to the conflict, it helps the Israeli Arabs, many of whom think of themselves as Palestinians. They will have the comfort of knowing they have a country to which they can emigrate at any time, assuming the Palestinians institute their own right of return as they currently say they will. I will go out on a limb and guess that most will not want to, avoiding it at all costs, preferring to continue living in the Jewish state as so-called "second class citizens" (which should tell you something) rather than their own "Arab" "Muslim" state, as it is enshrined in the various Palestinian charters.
This is basically a non-sequitor. Israel is a Jewish state. Whether the Palestinians recognize that or not.
There's a difference between "a state that has a mostly Jewish population" and a "Jewish state" (one explicitly founded and recognized to exist for the sake of a single ethnoreligious group). It's like how we don't call America a "Christian State" even thought the vast majority of the population is Christian to one degree or another.
I will go out on a limb and guess that most will not want to, avoiding it at all costs, preferring to continue living in the Jewish state as so-called "second class citizens" (which should tell you something) rather than their own "Arab" "Muslim" state, as it is enshrined in the various Palestinian charters.
That's your opinion.
This is basically a non-sequitor. Israel is a Jewish state. Whether the Palestinians recognize that or not.
I think you are misinformed. Israel is a Jewish state.
That's your opinion.
Search on "land swap", referring to the plan to swap Arab towns for the settlement blocks. The opinion is backed up by poll data and the majority of responses you hear from individual Palestinians in the articles.
Agha and Malley worry that these conflicting narratives about the origins of the conflict will remain in place even if clear borders were agreed upon and the Palestinians got a state of their own.
So what? Americans in the North and South still disagree about the causes of their civil war. Ending a violent conflict and establishing peaceful relations doesn't require an agreement on historical narratives, just an agreement to stop fighting about certain things. Let's stay focused.
So what? Americans in the North and South still disagree about the causes of their civil war. Ending a violent conflict and establishing peaceful relations doesn't require an agreement on historical narratives, just an agreement to stop fighting about certain things. Let's stay focused.
This is an extremely good point. We don't really need the two to give up grievances - they just have to be willing to actually work together and not express those grievances violently.
We don't really need the two to give up grievances - they just have to be willing to actually work together and not express those grievances violently.
"Not express those grievances violently".
What probability would you put on that?
I tend to think that Israel is looking ahead, sees more ploys to foment conflict (eg, "liberating the Palestinian brothers across the border"), and wants to get certain things agreed upon and down in writing.
You and I both know that this will not prevent the usual suspects from rationalizing any manufactured grievance, but it will serve to expose them for what they are and give Israel and its allies more standing to defend them.
(For instance, look at the whole Shebaa Farms dispute - The UN certified that Israel had completely left Lebanon. Then Hezbollah and Syria manufacture a dispute over the Shebaa Farms to justify Hezbollah's continued "resistance" and what do you get - people calling on Israel to hand over the Shebaa Farms. Who is really so stupid to think it will stop there?)
"Not express those grievances violently".
What probability would you put on that?
.
not so pretty probable, seeing as how the source of the grievances ---aka the injustice in which israel was founded--- shows no sign of slacking off.
it could be, if you moved back to the 1967 borders, admitted that the injustice in which israel was founded is contrary to jewish morals, and asked for forgiveness, the palestinians might be more inclined to listen to you.
but the bulldozers keep showing up, just like from the very beginning, so what are the palestinians supposed to do?
.
i guess the palestinians have read doc aumann's nobel-winning theories, and have decided to judge you by your actions instead of your words.
Ending a violent conflict and establishing peaceful relations doesn't require an agreement on historical narratives, just an agreement to stop fighting about certain things.
.
in other words, palestinians are supposed to do... what? ...when the IDF comes around with the bulldozers?
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what point you are making, wadosy. Obviously, a two-state solution requires an end to the Israeli occupation and no more bulldozers. But what it doesn't require is some sort of agreement on the correct narrative of the Zionist settlement of Palestine or on the events of 1948.
apparently israel has no intention of stopping...
...the bulldozers, which are a continuation of israeli policy that's been in effect since israel's founding.
as long as that policy continues... well, i guess you're right: it's useless wrangling about historical narrative, because the policy continues to this day.
in the meantime, as you're confronted with israel's continued expansion, what do you expect palestinians to do?
.
i would have got back to you sooner, but bill gates decided to overhaul my computer.
It may be ambiguous because the situation is so impossible. The authors have to be ambiguous to keep from setting off a firestorm of criticism from those who should be blamed and who are responsible for this injustice, which injustice started well before 1948. Indeed, the key is the last statement: "...the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel." The Zionists do not want to make that definition, because they prefer to keep it an open-ended affair. They see no reason to change tactics; they are under no pressure to do so; they are in charge and they have succeeded. Professor Walt wonders "if the two-state solution fails, what then?" What then is what we have now and more of it: the conquest and on-going occupation of Palestine. That is a fait accompli. Even the so-called "two-state solution" would be a variation of the same thing, since the second "state" would be a rump entity, a bantustan, and the Palestinian refugees would not be allowed to reclaim their homes, villages and property inside Israel proper. Tel Aviv and Washington are in agreement on these points.
Second, the timing of this piece isn't helpful -- especially given that misleading headline -- because it can only serve to slow progress towards the admittedly imperfect-but-still-best option of "two states for two peoples."
You're criticizing an essay that points out the problems with a Two-State Proposal on the grounds . . . that it criticizes the Two-State Proposal?
You do see that that's a ridiculous criticism, right? It would be like Abe Foxman criticizing The Israel Lobby on the grounds that it "undermines American support for Israel at a critical time".
Moreover, I think the two authors, among others (including myself) would dispute that the Two-State Solution is the "still-best" option.
The status quo isn't fixed, and a two-state solution gets a little bit harder to achieve with each passing day.
That's assuming it wasn't dead on arrival. There are many who would argue that it was, and even those who think it might be possible (myself included) notice the severity of the problems with it. Aside from the territorial issues, there's the defense issues (a Palestinian state without a military is a joke, yet Israel will probably never find a Palestinian army within medium-artillery range to be acceptable), the water issues, the refugees - the list goes on.
In their words, "this sentiment has now grown from hint to certitude." Given that Malley has reportedly met with Hamas leaders in the context of his work with the International Crisis Group, that is a remarkable assertion, and I wish they had spelled it out the evidence for it in more depth.
Yeah, but that could just be Hamas hedging their bets by not openly and totally rejecting the possibility of a Two-State Solution. If one goes forward, they don't want to be left sitting on the outside.
Fourth, to me, the most significant lines in the entire essay were the last two, where they write "the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel."
It goes back to 1947, and asks "Is Israel first, and foremost, a state for Jews? If it is, what does that mean for its non-Jewish citizens? If it's not, then should the claimed rights of the refugee Palestinians be incorporated back into it?" It basically goes to the very core of whether or not the entire Israeli enterprise is legitimate.
Finally, by far the most frustrating part of the essay was the complete absence of any prescriptions: what do Agha and Malley think that Israel, the Palestinians, the United States, or the international community should DO at the present juncture?
They probably just don't know, or think the answer is basically "a secular state in what is historic Palestine". It's a lot easier to identify problems than provide prescriptions.
And that brings me back to a question I've raised before: if the two-state solution fails, what then?
That leaves the "One-State Solution", which (in its most optimistic form) would basically be a secular Israeli state with citizenship not based on membership in a particular religious or ethnic group, incorporating all of historic Palestine and all the Palestinians.
Realistically, that would involve the Palestinians giving up on the idea of destroying Israel or setting up a separate state, and instead engaging in a struggle for equal rights and citizenship as part of Israel. That's a long, rough road, and the recriminations and the like would be pretty bitter.
since "might makes right" is the real answer...
do you figure you're gonna be mighty enough to defend yourselves once israeli america collapses from oil shortages and looters?
...or will your samson option be the crowning achievement of zionist morality?
do you figure you're gonna be mighty enough to defend yourselves once israeli america collapses from oil shortages and looters?
"Collapse"? Don't make me laugh. The US managed quite well without oil-driven transportation before the advent of cars, and while it would be a major change with massive efforts on residency and infrastructure, we could go back to a society without oil-driven transportation without collapse.
Besides, I notice that for your constant doom-and-gloom peakism, you have yet to actually present any proof about when the peak is supposed to finally come, and how the decline is supposed to go.
global oil production peaked in 2005. (table 1.1d, new EIA International Petroleum Monthly, out yesterday, graph below does not include yesterday's revisions)
in may 2005, the monthly peak was 74.2 mbpd... production dithered for three years just below that, then monthly production peaked higher, at 74.7 mbpd, in july 2008...
...and this after drills had doubled and the price increased seven-fold since january 2002.
The US managed quite well without oil-driven transportation before the advent of cars, and while it would be a major change with massive efforts on residency and infrastructure, we could go back to a society without oil-driven transportation without collapse.
i think that remains to be seen, in view of the fact that we're wasting trillions every year on looter bailouts and imperial wars, and the transition is gonna require a massive input of fossil fuels, input above normal consumption.
transition is gonna require a massive input of fossil fuels, input above normal consumption.
A peak (even assuming the 2005 Peak is accurate) isn't going to have a sudden drop-off on the down slope. That means that we have oil to transition, and if need be, that oil can be restricted to transition purposes.
As for a "massive input", not really. It's mostly a matter of laying rail lines, and finding some way to replace some key machinery with non-gasoline powered versions.
"the timing of this piece isn't helpful"
it does not seem that hard to see the two writers want a legal/just one state solution. so here is the question:
is presenting a worse option from the Israeli point of view so bad?
Will it be a modern secular democracy with a certain Jewish character, but where non-Jews are fully equal citizens both de jure and de facto? Or will Israel continue to pursue the dream of Greater Israel, increasingly fueled by ethno-religious claims and the growing political power of religious extremists? If so, then it will become an apartheid state and will eventually face a Palestinian struggle for democratic rights.
Once again you prove yourself to be without a shred of credibility on the Israel/Palestine Issue.
Calling Israel a potential Apartheid state simply makes you as much of an extremist as those who call the Palestinian national movement a suicidal death cult. Over a million Israeli Arabs live in Israel in peace and have full democratic rights. (of course, someone will now bring up discrimination, but no one would dare say the US isn’t a democracy because of discrimination against its minorities).
Unlike Israeli Arabs, Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. In fact, the Palestinians are at war with the Israelis. The white South Africans were not giving citizenship rights to their own people not people who had declared war on them, were blowing them up in busses and restaurants, and firing rockets into their cities. Saying it is Apartheid not to give citizenship rights to Palestinians who are at war with Israel is akin to saying the US is an apartheid state because we occupy Afghanistan and the Taliban are not made US citizens.
By an overwhelming majority, Israelis do not want a greater Israel comprising of all of the West Bank and Gaza. Your "Dream" language is simply extremist rhetoric.
Even PM Olmert, a former supporter stated:
"Greater Israel is over. There is no such thing. Anyone who talks that way is deluding themselves,"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020929.html
Can you imagine a Palestinian leader making such a realistic procamation about the the full right of return being a fantasy?
Sharon gave up all possibility of a "Greater Israel" in Gaza by removing all the settlements there.
Compare this to the leadership of Palestinians. At the "moderate" Fatah conference this week in which the new "young guard" were placed in positions of power as reported by Khaled Abu Toameh:
The young guard members also voted in favor of a series of hard-line resolutions that were brought before the conference, including one that endorses Fatah’s armed militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, as an official organ of the faction, and another that states that the Palestinians will never relinquish the right of return for refugees to Israel proper and that they are willing to make "sacrifices" to liberate Jerusalem
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418582678&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
and Tawfiq Tirawi, Security Advisor to PA President Mahmoud Abbas said last week:
"Jerusalem Cannot Be Regained Without Thousands of Martyrs"
This is the leadership of the entire Palestinian people not outlying extremists.
Palestinians do not accept Israel as the home of the Jewish nation, yet they expect Israel to accept a future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian nation cleansed of all Jews. If the Palestinians people want a state that is recognized as a Palestinian homeland then they should accept that the Jewish people also want a state recognized as their homeland.
As to why the one state solution is a diabolical fantasy, the Israeli Jews would end up like any minority in an Arab majority state, gassed like the Kurds, exterminated like the black and Christian Sudanese, or at the very least ethnically cleansed like Jews in every Arab majority state.
Over a million Israeli Arabs live in Israel in peace and have full democratic rights.
So what? That doesn't change the fact that they've been isolating the Palestinians in the Territories into ethnic ghettoes cut off by settlements and roads. That is Apartheid.
The white South Africans were not giving citizenship rights to their own people not people who had declared war on them, were blowing them up in busses and restaurants, and firing rockets into their cities.
The ANC actually did include a violent component.
Saying it is Apartheid not to give citizenship rights to Palestinians who are at war with Israel is akin to saying the US is an apartheid state because we occupy Afghanistan and the Taliban are not made US citizens.
Is the US actively seizing Afghani territory and moving its citizens there as permanent colonists, giving them full voting rights and the like?
That's what Israel has been doing in the West Bank. They've held off actually annexing the territory in question (because that would probably involve giving citizenship to the West Bank Palestinians), but seem content to move settlers there who do get to vote and the like.
By an overwhelming majority, Israelis do not want a greater Israel comprising of all of the West Bank and Gaza. Your "Dream" language is simply extremist rhetoric.
Yet for some reason, the settler population has continued to grow rapidly over the past 10-20 years. If Israelis "do not want a greater Israel", they sure as shit aren't doing much to stop it aside from occasionally removing one of the trailer parks set up on the top of some barren hill (which usually then spring up later) in the West Bank.
It's not a bad point that the two-state solution suffers from the obvious fault that if it materializes, it effectively obviates a tremendous amount of palestinian suffering. After all, the two-state solution, as westerners perceive it (palestinian state in approx. w. bank/gaza, some sort of jerusalem compromise, limited to no reintegration of pal. refugees to israel), is on all levels a worse deal than that they rejected in 1947. So what have the past 60+ years of struggle and suffering achieved? I'm not sure the palestinian population is willing to accept that.
I don't think they are, at least not yet. It's not hard to see why - from the perspective of the Palestinians, they're being asked to basically give us any claim to their homes in pre-1947 Israel, in exchange for only a fraction of the territory that they would have received as part of the original Two-State Solution (22% of Mandatory Palestine at best).
Just as painfully (and I get this impression from reading the works of educated Palestinians who write on this issue), they believe that they're being asked to accept the justice of the Zionist enterprise - that it was fair and right for their parents and grand-parents to lose their homes in 1948-49 (which they left usually under threat of death and harm, as historian Benny Morris points out).That it was fair for the Israelis to get a state in 1947 that was grotesquely out of proportion to their actual land ownership (only three small areas of Mandatory Palestine, basically concentrated urban areas, had Jewish majorities in terms of land ownership- the rest of Israel's terrain usually had arab majorities in terms of land ownership, including some hefty ones in areas like the Negev), and for hundreds of thousands of Arabs to be dropped into that state due to the whim of the UN and the powers that controlled it. That it was right for the Zionist Jews to get a state carved out of Palestinian lands in response to a European injustice and barbarism (the Holocaust).
Before the usual apologists protest, yes, there's anti-semitism and the like in the mix, and the violence in the pre-1947 era strongly suggests that living together would have been seriously difficult, if not impossible. Yes, it's horribly unrealistic of them, since a population exchange occurred (hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from Arab countries and their properties confiscated), and they need to move on. But that's the root of it, I think, and I question whether the Palestinians are really ready to let it go.
After all, the two-state solution, as westerners perceive it (palestinian state in approx. w. bank/gaza, some sort of jerusalem compromise, limited to no reintegration of pal. refugees to israel), is on all levels a worse deal than that they rejected in 1947. So what have the past 60+ years of struggle and suffering achieved? I'm not sure the palestinian population is willing to accept that.
I don't think they are, at least not yet. It's not hard to see why - from the perspective of the Palestinians, they're being asked to basically give us any claim to their homes in pre-1947 Israel, in exchange for only a fraction of the territory that they would have received as part of the original Two-State Solution (22% of Mandatory Palestine at best).
So the the Palestinians are not willing to compromise. You think? It's been obvious for years. Every time they reject an offer, we hear it's because the offer was so crappy (Malley and Agha did that very thing when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state). It's not because the offers were crappy, it's just because every one called on the Palestinians to actually make some kind of compromise, and they want it all. It's what the M&A op-ed is alluding to, though they would never say it outright.
So the the Palestinians are not willing to compromise. You think? It's been obvious for years. Every time they reject an offer, we hear it's because the offer was so crappy (Malley and Agha did that very thing when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state). It's not because the offers were crappy, it's just because every one called on the Palestinians to actually make some kind of compromise, and they want it all. It's what the M&A op-ed is alluding to, though they would never say it outright.
Compromise? You're giving them what, as they see it, they already have, and expecting them to be thankful for it and live entirely at the mercy of Israel in any situation.
At least, that's what I suspect their opinion (those that aren't "Islam calls us to kill the Zionists" folks) is. I don't agree with it - I think they should have just let the refugee issue go, or pretended to let it go, in order to get some type of state in order to move forward. While I'm sympathetic to the fact that everywhere else in the Arab World treats the refugees like shit, and you really need something to help reconcile them (otherwise they'll stay a problem), they need to stop acting like they're one day going to triumph in a glorious battle over Israel and re-set the clock to 1946. A population exchange happened, for largely immoral reasons and due to a wholly unfair settlement, but nothing can change that now, and they need to move on.
Once they had that state, then they could have, if they wanted to, done what Ben-Gurion said the Israelis would do, namely "Take half a loaf and dream about the rest later". As is, they didn't, and it's not hard to see why. More than half the Palestinian population lives outside the West Bank and Gaza, and what do they get out of a Two-State Solution? They pressure the leaders, and since the Palestinian leaders (particularly Arafat) care first and foremost about retaining their power, they're not going to be particularly inclined to make any deep sacrifices that could have them ending up like Anwar Sadat.
When I say 'compromise' I am referring to what in reality is a compromise in the current situation. Not how the Palestinians view compromise. My two points are:
1) So if we agree that it is very likely they won't accept any kind of deal we would consider a reasonable compromise (which would necessarily entail huge concessions from Israel's point of view), what now?
2) One would get the impression that it is entirely Israel's fault that a compromise can't be reached from reading Walt's blog, when in reality it appears that the opposite is true. How can we enact good policy if we are basing it on erroneous assumptions? "If we just pressure the Israelis to make one more concession, that will be the key to unlocking peace." Hardly. Secondarily, it shows that Walt generally can't be trusted when he writes about this subject (which was already blatantly obvious from his paper).
I don't disagree with your description of how the Palestinians feel and it is not surprising they feel that way. But bottom line, it's time to move on and look forward.
More than half the Palestinian population lives outside the West Bank and Gaza, and what do they get out of a Two-State Solution?
If you are talking about today's Palestinians, they get to leave the 60 year old refugee camps and become citizens in their own country. That's a big deal, especially considering how badly the refugees are treated in some Arab countries.
It's true, the Palestinians are being asked to accept the "justice" of the founding of the state of israel, and that's whats going to hold up agreement. Without that, this is just a border dispute. And until the Palestinians are ready (either through education or political will) to give up on some of the specious anti-zionist arguments like the ones you cited (i'm not saying you agree with them, obviously the idea of tying sovereign claims to private land ownership claims is fairly ludicrous, but many Palestinians do believe them) they will never come to terms with israel's existence. Conversly, Israel's primary problem is not a border dispute, it's that the Arab states haven't come to terms with its existence, so they are unlikely to accept any offer that doesn't include that. So we are left with a recipe for either a Netanyahu-style "permanent interim solution" or continued open conflict, or something in between, until this fundamental argument (whether Israel is a just enterprise) is resolved one way or the other.
"is on all levels a worse deal than that they rejected in 1947. So what have the past 60+ years of struggle and suffering achieved? I'm not sure the palestinian population is willing to accept that."
So it is the Israeli's fault that the Palestinians refused their own state and refused peace? When you reject peace several times, start wars, and intentionally bomb civilians, you don't get all your desires. That would be perverse.
In 1937 the early Zionists, such as Ben Gurion, accepted this sliver as the national home of the Jewish people because it was a homeland for the Jewish people that was their goal (of course, this division was rejected by the Arabs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peel_map_pd.png
If only the Palestinans desire to have a state was so strong.
So it is the Israeli's fault that the Palestinians refused their own state and refused peace?
somebody knocks down your door, throws you out in the street, steals your house and land, and then complains when you dont slink quietly off to live in a concentration camp.
"So it is [Israel's] fault that the Palestinians refused their own state and refused peace?"
Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that the two-state solution may not satiate the Palestinian public's collective need to have 'achieved' something by enduring two generations in refugee camps. And if they don't accept the two-state solution, then it doesn't work to solve the conflict.
That, of course, is the underlying depressing note of the original NY Times article. Because any solution that garners for the Palestinians something more than they could have gotten in 1947 probably ends the State of Israel as we know it, which crosses their red lines. So getting the parties to agree may be a Sisyphean task.
the fact that the two-state solution may not satiate the Palestinian public's collective need to have 'achieved' something by enduring two generations in refugee camps.
...and it might not "satiate" palestinians' knowledge of right from wrong, otherwise known as "justice"... something zionists seem ignorant of...
...or maybe israelis do have at least a passing knowledge of justice, seeing as how they're finally starting to acknowledge that they have to abandon their morals in defense of israel.
In 1937 the early Zionists, such as Ben Gurion, accepted this sliver as the national home of the Jewish people because it was a homeland for the Jewish people that was their goal (of course, this division was rejected by the Arabs).
Ben-Gurion accepted it as a temporary goal towards ultimately getting all of historic Palestine as an Israeli state, and specifically said that he would reject any proposal that called upon the Zionists to expressly reject any such claim to greater Israel. Sort of like how Israelis and their supporters fear that allowing a Palestine in the West Bank would be a stepping stone for re-conquering all of the area for the Palestinians - and certainly a number of the Two-State supporters see it this way (from what I've heard, Abbas himself believes that Israel will collapse in 20 or so years after making a Two-State Deal).
Moreover, the Zionists were far from united on it. Begin's faction, for example, didn't truly accept Ben-Gurion's compromise.
I. No one would have gone anywhere if the Arabs had accepted the two state solution in 1948 instead of invading.
Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha told Jewish Agency representatives on September 16, 1947.
The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.
Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:
The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.
Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19.
II. No one knows the exact reason why each individual refugee left. Some were probably forced from their homes during the war the Arabs started, but there is PLENTY of evidence Arabs were told to leave and most did leave on their own until the Arab armies could kill all the Jews. Even Arab leaders admit to this.
For example:
The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book:
This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country
Edward Atiyah, The Arabs, London: Penguin Books, 1955, p. 183.
The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951).
Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees to their country, while it is we who made them leave it. We brought disaster upon one million Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave their land, their homes, their work and their industry. We have rendered them dispossessed, unemployed, whilst every one of them had work or a trade by which he could gain his livelihood.
Khaled El-Azm, former Prime Minister of Syria, Memoirs (Arabic) Mudha-karat Khaled El-Azm, 3 volumes (Al-Dar al Muttahida lil-Nashr), Vol. 1, pp. 386-7
The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies
Jordanian newspaper Filastin, (February 19, 1949).
III. The Palestinians were not put in "concentration camps", if they were, they would all be dead. They were put in refugee camps by the countries they went to. If the Palestinian refugees were treated deplorably in these camps, then you can blame Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt as those are the countries where they went. The Palestinians in Lebabnon today are treated FAR worse than the Palestinians in the West Bank. The 200,000 Arabs who remained in Israel (why would Israel let 200,000 remain if their intent was ethnic descendants?) and their 1,000,000 decendants, on the other hand, are full citizens with full legal rights. The Palestinians in Jordan are right now being stripped of their citizenship.
europeans moved to palestine...
...and found it necessary to terrorize hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and land.
why is that?
why are israelis finding it necessary...
to abandon their morals in defense of israel?
why is mr dror calling for ALL JEWS...
...to abandon their morals in defense of israel?
why is mr dror trying to imply that jewish survival depends on the survival of israel, when it's obvious that defense of israel, and israeli abandonment of moral behavior, is harming all jews?
the same old questions we're supposed to ask: "is it good for the jews?" and "is it good for israel?"...
...but never, ever, in a million years, "is israel good for the jews?"
are we really and truly supposed to believe...
...that it will be good for jews if jews abandon their morals?
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(65)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE