-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Monday, August 30, 2010 - 11:06 AM
Share
President Obama is hosting a dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sept. 1, in order to kick off the new round of direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. As regular readers know, I don't think this effort will go anywhere, because the two sides are too far apart and because the Obama administration won't have the political will to push them towards the necessary compromises.
Furthermore, there are now a few hints that the Obama administration is about to repeat the same mistakes that doomed the Clinton administration's own Middle East peacemaking efforts and the Bush administration's even more half-hearted attempts (i.e., the "Road Map" and the stillborn Annapolis summit). Last week, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth provided a summary of a conference call between Obama Middle East advisors Dennis Ross, Dan Shapiro, and David Hale and the leaders of a number of influential American Jewish organizations. According to the article (whose accuracy I cannot vouch for), the goal of the direct talks will be a "framework agreement" between the two sides that would then be implemented over a period of up to ten years.
Excuse me, but haven't we seen this movie before, and isn't the last reel a bummer? This idea sounds a lot like the Oslo Accords, which also laid out a "framework" for peace, but deferred the hard issues to the end and repeatedly missed key deadlines. Or maybe it's another version of the Road Map/Annapolis summit, which offered deadlines and bold talk and led precisely nowhere. Or perhaps what they have in mind is a "shelf agreement" -- a piece of paper that sits "on the shelf" until conditions are right (i.e., forever). It is this sort of charade that has led veteran observers like Henry Siegman to denounce the long-running peace process as a "scam," and Siegman is hardly alone in that view.
Here's the basic problem: Unless the new "framework" is very detailed and specific about the core issues -- borders, the status of East Jerusalem, the refugee issue, etc., -- we will once again have a situation where spoilers on both sides have both an incentive and the opportunity to do whatever they can to disrupt the process. And even if it were close to a detailed final-status agreement, a ten-year implementation schedule provides those same spoilers (or malevolent third parties) with all the time they will need to try to derail the deal. I can easily imagine Netanyahu and other hardliners being happy with this arrangement, as they would be able to keep expanding settlements (either openly or covertly) while the talks drag on, which is what has happened ever since Oslo (and under both Likud and Labor governments). Ironically, some members of Hamas might secretly welcome this outcome too, because it would further discredit moderates like Abbas and Fayyad. And there is little reason to think the United States would do a better job of managing the process than it did in 1990s.
The great paradox of the negotiations is that United States is clearly willing and able to put great pressure on both Fatah and Hamas (albeit in different ways), even though that is like squeezing a dry lemon by now. Fatah has already recognized Israel's existence and has surrendered any claims to 78 percent of original Mandate Palestine; all they are bargaining over now is the share they will get of the remaining 22 percent. Moreover, that 22 percent is already dotted with Israeli settlements (containing about 500,000 people), and carved up by settler-only bypass roads, checkpoints, fences, and walls. And even if they were to get an independent state on all of that remaining 22 percent (which isn't likely) they will probably have to agree to some significant constraints on Palestinian sovereignty and they are going to have to compromise in some fashion on the issue of the "right of return." The obvious point is that when you've got next to nothing, you've got very little left to give up, no matter how hard Uncle Sam twists your arm.
At this point, the main concessions have to come from Israel, simply because it is the occupying power whose presence in the West Bank and whose physical control over Gaza makes a Palestinian state impossible. Some readers may think this characterization is unfair, but the issue isn't so much one of "fairness" as one of simple practicality. How do you possibly create "two states for two peoples" if Israel doesn't withdraw from virtually all of the West Bank?
As a few Israeli leaders have recognized, Israel can preserve its democratic and Jewish character and avoid becoming an apartheid state only by allowing the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own. Moreover, given the inherent disparity of the basic outcome (78 percent vs. 22 percent), the rest of the deal cannot be Carthaginian. By necessity, it will mean sharing Jerusalem in some fashion and withdrawing tens of thousands of settlers from the West Bank (even if some existing settlements are accommodated via mutual land swaps and border modifications).
Indeed, the more that I think about it, the more baffled I am. Why has Obama made such a high-stakes gamble with so little prospect of real success? By now he must know that he won't be able to push Netanyahu very hard without facing pressure from AIPAC and Co. and squawks from influential Democratic Party insiders. By now he must realize that Netanyahu doesn't see himself as the Israeli De Gaulle (who got France out of Algeria), or the Israeli De Klerk (who ended white rule in South Africa). By now Obama should also have a realistic sense of the likelihood that Egypt or Saudi Arabia will help him impose a one-sided deal (they won't), and he may even suspect that excluding Hamas completely isn't likely to work either. Well, if any or all of this is true, then why is he committing his own prestige and getting everyone's hopes up again? Isn't the climb-down he had to pull after the Cairo speech enough damage for one term?
My guess -- and that's all it is -- is that Obama is doing this
because he said repeatedly that he'd do something, and because he also knows that the conflict continues to damage America's strategic
interests and it isn't going to get better if the United States does
nothing. Plus, his natural political instinct is to play the long game. Like Dickens's Mr. Micawber, he is
hoping that "something will turn up." I hope he's right and I am wrong, but when something "turns up" in that part of the world, it's usually an unpleasant surprise. In any case, it's hard for me to see this as
wise statecraft at this moment in history.
But you don't have to believe me. Instead, here's a selection of things you can read if you'd like to get some other views.
You might start with Martin Indyk's more optimistic take in the New York Times last week. Indyk certainly knows a lot about how not to make peace (having been a key player in the Clinton administration's ill-fated stewardship of the Oslo process), but he now believes "the negotiating environment is better suited to peacemaking today than it has been at any point in the last decade. The prospects for peace depend now on the willpower of the leaders."
Well, maybe, but the "willpower of the leaders" is a pretty thin reed upon which to rest one's hopes, especially when you consider the domestic obstacles that all three leaders face (and that Indyk downplays or ignores). Indyk also assumes that Netanyahu genuinely wants a fair deal, as opposed to either a set of dismembered Palestinian "statelets" (which is as far as he's gone in the past) or maybe just the illusion of a peace process. One can't rule that possibility out completely, of course, but there's no hard evidence that Netanyahu has changed his views. Nor does Indyk suggest that the United States use its considerable leverage to force a deal; all we get is a call for Obama to exercise skillful "statesmanship." And as Rabbi Brant Rosen notes here, there are some pretty profound omissions in Indyk's account.
For some practical suggestions on how to make progress, see Brian Katulis and David Avital's "Learning from Past Middle East Mistakes," at Politico. I wouldn't say they are wildly optimistic, but they do see certain positive features in the present situation and they outline how Obama & Co. could use them to avoid failure. So if you're looking for a more upbeat assessment than mine, the Indyk and Katulis & Avital pieces are a good place to start.
For a gloomier view, check out Josh Ruebner "Top Ten reasons for skepticism" on the Mondoweiss website. And if you still retain shreds of hope, follow that up with David Gardner's even darker reflections from the Financial Times, where he refers to the entire peace process as "poisoned."
For a neoconservative take, you can read Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard, who says that the people who really need to be protected from the peace process are the Israeli settlers who have been occupying the West Bank for decades. As Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress pointed out in a telling riposte: one of the main motivations behind the whole settlement enterprise was to "create facts" on the ground, so that it would be difficult-to-impossible to remove them later. Ironically, Barnes's paean of sympathy for the settlers merely highlights the domestic constraints that may make it even harder to craft a deal than Ruebner and Gardner and I think.
Next, be sure to look at Ali Abunimah's Sunday New York Times op-ed on the dangers of excluding Hamas from the peace process, where he makes an interesting comparison between the U.S. approach to the peace process in Northern Ireland and the very different approach that it has adopted in the Middle East. (And while you're at it, check out FP colleague Jim Traub's rather different but no less pessimistic discussion of the Northern Ireland analogy here.) I think engaging Hamas is a trickier business than Abunimah does, and I've long thought that it would be easier to do this if a serious peace process were in motion and Hamas was afraid of missing the boat (a point that Indyk also makes). But his broader argument is probably correct, and kudos to the Times editors for running it. Alas, because reaching out to Hamas is the last thing Obama will do at this point, there's even less reason to think that the new talks will get us anywhere.
Finally, I'd like to second FP colleague Marc Lynch's tweeted endorsement of Robert Malley and Peter Harling's "Beyond Moderates and Militants: How Obama Can Chart a New Course in the Middle East" in the latest Foreign Affairs. It's a fascinating article, and I'll need to read it again before I grasp all of its implications. But their main message strikes me as on-the-money at first reading: U.S. Middle East policy reflects an outdated conception of the region as divided between two camps: hardline, anti-American radicals and pro-American moderates. Instead, the policy choices of most actors in the region reflect more complicated calculations of interest rather than rigid religious or ideological categories. (Needless to say, I'd argue that means they are acting more-or-less the way a realist would expect). Malley and Harling recommend more flexible and pragmatic U.S. policies that take these new complexities into account, while retaining certain long-standing commitments: Money quotation:
The alternative is for the United States to play the role of conductor, coordinating the efforts of different nations even as it preserves its privileged ties to Israel and others. For example, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, together with Qatar and Turkey, could spearhead efforts to bring about Palestinian national reconciliation consistent with a continued U.S.-led peace process. Turkey, assuming that it mends its ties with Israel and maintains its newfound credibility in Arab countries, could serve as a channel to Hamas and Syria on peace talks or to Iran on the nuclear issue. Under the auspices of the United States, Iraq's Arab neighbors and Iran could reach a minimal consensus on Iraq's future aimed at maintaining Iraq's territorial unity, preserving its Arab identity, protecting Kurdish rights, and ensuring healthy, balanced relations between Baghdad and Tehran. Washington should intensify its efforts to resume and conclude peace negotiations between Israel and Syria, which would do far more to affect Tehran's calculations than several more rounds of UN sanctions. Syria also could be useful in reaching out to residual pockets of Sunni militants in Iraq."
Sounds right to me, and it would be a clear departure from our current approach. Don't forget that Malley was an advisor to Obama during the 2008 campaign, until he got dumped when his contacts with Hamas (undertaken as part of his non-governmental job at the International Crisis Group) were thought to be a electoral liability for Obama. Which tells you all you need to know about the prospects for a genuine breakthrough. Unfortunately.
MENAHEM KAHANA/ABBAS MOMANI/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:MEDIASPHERE, OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE GAMBLE, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
That Obama's now totally caved-in to Israel cannot be ignored. In the larger perspective, this charade must be tied in somehow to the recent visits of Israel to DC, to get Obama inline for doing what "has to be done" with Iran. Or not....that's the puzzle here.
When Dennis Ross was transferred over from relative harmlessness at State to be White House lead on Iran, we knew the jig was up.
Conventional wisdom to one side, its a safe be this is being done at Israel's behest; otherwise they would have squashing the idea in the bud (Sorry, George, you have no real influence). Its a set-up for something, and if the Pal's can give no more and Israel is not going to give away anything (for biblical and political reasons), what is their game? Best I can can do is agree with Walt's suggestion: it's a cover for an Oslo II exercise, to shut-up the int'l community and give Israel cover for additional colonization next the next ten years.
which controls the world! Protocols of the Elders of Zion anyone?
Hamas gunmen murder four Israelis in ambush near Hebron
August 31, 2010 Two of the victims were a pregnant woman and her husband. The gunmen sprayed their car at the Beni Naim junction near Kiryat Arba Tuesday night, Aug. 31. They then approached the vehicle and shot all four victims again at point-blank range to make sure they were dead. Hamas leaders threatened to sabotage the Israeli-Palestinian talks in Washington this week with a wave of terror.
Did you just say it is likely that the MOSSAD killed those israelis? Scott, you are deranged and bigoted.
ADDA no Israeli's spray a car with bullets and then
shoot the civilians at point blank. You are an antisemite pig. You can't make one comment to honestly condemn what happened. Instead you have to point a finger at Israel. You are a bigot.
Excellent Analysis re: Beyond Moderates and Militants
As you have stated, the "Beyond Moderates and Militiants" article by Malley and Harling is spot-on. The Middle East is NOT simply made of a camp of "moderate" pro-West regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which in many cases pursue policies that the population abhors and the hard-line ideological camp led by Tehran. Those hardline anti-American radicals are often far more popular in the Arab population than the moderate pro-Americans.
They make the accurate point that the United States can NOT promote democracy (particularly the Bush administrations mantra) and then reject open elections in the Palestinian terrotories in January 2006. However, this is simply symptomatic of the authors main thesis that the US is too slow to recognize trends in the Middle East. It is only now recognizing the rise of Turkey when the rise of Turkey was starting to become rather evident after the Gaza war of 2008/2009.
I recommend another article in the same issue of Foreign Affairs that argues that Israel's opaque nuclear policy is incompatible with emerging global nuclear norms and democratic principles.
Thank you, Professor Walt; another important and realistic article on the subject of ME.
Unfortunately, the prospects for some real progress aren´t very good.
The coming remarks by the President on the matter, after the meeting later this week, will be most interesting.
Israel has only one war. The battle they fight over and over, and always win, is the battle over public opinion in the USA. Nothing else in the entire ME or the entire world is as important for Israel. Their soldiers are policiticans who perform fearlessly, knowing they will never lose and will always profit. Their generals operate from inside plush Think Tanks. Their propaganda is duly stenographed by the Media. As long as this battle remains won no US politician, no president, no public figure, and no Media of the "Lamestream" variety will ever remain in good standing should they ever declare their disagreement. Israel wins the war, Palestinians only lose.
"Netanyahoo and other hardliners" Why is netanyahoo a hardliner because he is the only prime minister to ever freeze construction in the west bank because he wont give in to the lefts surrender to terror and weakness.
Is king Abdullah of saudi arabia radical for you? Is hassan Nassrallah is the hamas? No mention of that radical player in the conflict sorry I meant hardliner.
How can the U.S put pressure on Hamas genius , please give us an example not just wishful thinking.
So Israel should be happy that the Moderate Fatach is only asking for 22% and not for the whole 100% , gee thanks moderate fatach for not wanting the whole country you are no longer radical.
Yes they will have to agree on constrictions on palestinian sovereignty, when they prove to be responsible peace loving stable country they will get everything they want, in the meanwhile they have not proved responsible enough to run anything let alone a country with an army.
Look at what happened in gaza who is to say it wont happen in the west bank.
Obama is the reason the palestinians are stalling the talks dont forget how he demandad things of Israel and the palestinians cannot ask for less.
Don't forget about the hamas and Iran and other regional players which are not helping the "peace" but you keep blaming Israel and pushing for a state of no solution, you understand that you are only pushing the prospect of peace further away with your radical leftie agenda .
Israel could and should be critisized but when you are not objective and keep repeating the same boring crap you dont help.
Incorrect Facts, PLEASE LEARN YOUR HISTORY WALT
"Fatah has already recognized Israel's existence and has surrendered any claims to 78 percent of original Mandate Palestine."
Original Mandate Palestine was what is BOTH Jordan and Israel today. The British Mandate Palestine comprised the territory both east and west of the Jordan river. It stretched from the Mediterranean to Iraq. It was divided in 1922, with 80% going to form an ARAB STATE. This state became Jordan, with its ruler implanted from the Hashemite family of Saudi Arabia (which got its rears handed to them by the al Saud family).
So, When Steve says 78% of original mandate palestine, his facts are incorrect. 78-80% of original mandate palestine ALREADY went to the Arabs in 1922. It is Jordan, whose population is 75% or more Palestinian Arab, and whose king is a foreign implant, who rules by martial law and jerrymandering districts.
This fact can be summed up neatly by a quote from a PLO leader.
Zuhair Mohsen, PLO executive committee member, made the following statement in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.
"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
Steve Walt knows this, he was misleading on purpose
You and I both know that he thought he was going to get away with it, too.
For a complementary description of the transformation of former British Palestine mandate into modern Israel and adjacent Palestinian territories, I recommend some works by dr Norman Finkelstein, see for instance "Beyond chutzpah" and "Image and Reality".
who was denied tenure as a professor (in academia, this is effectively being fired). Please reference scholarly authors/professors (such as those that can speak Hebrew and Arabic), and not pop-culture, shock value authors like finkelstein.
Not to mention Finkelstein has NOTHING to do
with the fact that Steve Walt purposefully pretended as if Jordan was not part of that mandate as a giant proportion given to the Arabs. Easy fact to ignore for your narrative, eh?
Wow, Adda and Johnboy justifying British aggression to bash
Israel. Nice, so when the British carve up palestine and oppress a nation of a Palestinian majority and install a Hashemite monarchy for the next century, not a word of condemnation! You do realize the measley dates of the Mandate don't change this fact, right?
Again, People here pretending to know their history
The Palestine Mandate (Including Israel and Jordan) was created in April 1920 during the San Remo Conference between Britain and France and the allied Supreme War Council. The San Remo conference determined the locations of class "A" mandates. During this conference Britain was given the "Palestine Mandate" which included Israel and Jordan.
I repeat, this land was under British governmental control as ONE SINGLE TERRITORY since that date, as a class "A" Mandate. Later League of Nations ratifications only served to rubber stamp decisions and actions already taken since San Remo.
So, no, my history and dates are not incorrect. Your shallow viewing of history is.
Moreover, even after the partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain completed the action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence.
Thus the British subverted the purpose of the Palestine Mandate, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population.
Neat trick at not knowing your history ADDA And Johnboy?
Again, San Remo created the Mandates. San Remo was in 1920. The Mandates were active political entities with defined borders since then. League of Nations only "rubber stamped" this in 1922 and 1923.
"Israel's early leaders saw the Hashemite entity as both a buffer between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, and a state that could absorb those Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and the Six Day war in 1967."
This means that Israel's leaders saw Jordan as the Palestinian state that it is. Thanks for proving my point.
"The "Jordan option" contravenes the tacit understanding reached by the founders of Israel and King Abdullah I that Israel would accept the establishment of a Hashemite-run state in east Jordan."
Tacit understanding? It was Jordan that invaded Israel in 1948, and took the entire West Bank from Israel or the Palestinians (whoever you want to say had it). Jordan would have taken more territory if it could have. Abdullah I tried to destroy Israel with the rest of the Arab countries in 1948. So, I think your "tacit understanding" goes out the window on that one. Nice try though.
From Arab Leaders, even King Hussein, proving me correct
# "Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country."
- King Abdullah, at the Meeting of the Arab League, Cairo, 12th April 1948
# "Let us not forget the East Bank of the (River) Jordan, where seventy per cent of the inhabitants belong to the Palestinian nation."
- George Habash, leader of the PFLP section of the PLO, writing in the PLO publication Sha-un Falastinia, February 1970
# "Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate."
- Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1970
"With all respect to King Hussein, I suggest that the Emirate of Transjordan was created from oil cloth by Great Britain, which for this purpose cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the bast of the Jordan (River)., it gave the name Transjordan. But there is nothing in history which carries this name. While since our earliest time there was Palestine and Palestinians. I maintain that the matter of Transjordan is an artificial one, and that Palestine is the basic problem. King Hussein should submit to the wishes of the people, in accordance with the principles of democracy and self-determination, so as-to avoid the fate of his grandfather, Abdullah, or of his cousin, Feisal, both of whom were assassinated."
- Past President Bourguiba of Tunisia, in a public statement, July 1973
"Palestine and Jordan were both (by then) under British Mandate, but as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs, they were hardly separate countries. Transjordan being to the east of the River Jordan, it formed in a sense, the interior of Palestine."
- King Hussein, writing in his Memoirs
Look at ADDA and Johnboy backtrack and stammer and stutter
like two blubbering buffoons. 1920 San Remo created the Palestine Mandate. Yes, the conference was led and created by the Allies. So was the League of Nations! Guess which agreement lasted longer? The Mandate A's created by San Remo, or the League of Nations? The league died with WWII while the Mandates went on after the war!
stop trying to backbend and twist history! I dont care what the Zionists accepted or why. I don't care who was a majority and where. The main fact is, in 1920 the Mandates were created and Jordan and Israel were part of one single Palestine Mandate.
Good day fools.
Also, enough with the "apartheid" nonsense
A political science professor should know what apartheid actually is, before he uses the word willy nilly.
You can't have apartheid with two separate nations, under their own separate governments. 98% of the Palestinians are under their own government (elected by them) and they carry their own national passports. They have recognition in as much or more countries than Israel even!!! They also have their own police force, prison system, intelligence agencies, and diplomats.
The US and Mexico are divided. Separate governments, separate passports, separate economies, and their own separate infrastructure. No one would argue that this is apartheid.
South African apartheid was racial segregation amongst fellow-South African citizens, akin to segregation in the American south. As separate nations, under their own governments and authorities Israel and the Palestinians are not in some apartheid.
A political science professor should know better. In fact, all he has to do is look in the Webster dictionary to see what "apartheid" means. Instead, Walt would rather act like a child and make ad hominem attacks.
Apartheid is a rather harsh metaphor for what is going on in Israel, but it is the closest historical situation we have where a majority population within the territory controlled by a country (Like it or not, Israel can and does exersize complete control over the west bank and complete control over the borders of Gaza in addition to being able to kill at will within its borders. Oh yes, and the Palestinians will outnumber Israelis quite soon within the controlled territories if current demographic trends hold). If one counts Israeli Arabs as well as Palestinians, Jews may already be a minority in the territory controlled by Israel.
This will create a rather dangerous situation unless the West Bank and Gaza are permanently separated from Israel proper. As I see it, there will only be five options:
1) A two-state solution. Seems rather unlikely at the moment, but there remains some time to accomplish this.
2) Apartheid. As I said, this is probably a rather harsh description, but we may end up with an Israel in which the majority population is unrepresented in government and faces restrictions in their rights (freedom of movement for example).
3) Mass Expulsion. I see already a posting in the comments noting that 80% of Mandate Palestine is now Jordan whose population is majority Palestinian. How long before Israel decides simply to expel their own Palestinian population to this "homeland"?
4) Genocide. As a Jew, I hope I never live to see a generation raised with the story of the holocaust repeat it, but given some of the rhetoric, I fear that this remains a possibility.
5) A non-Jewish single state. If Israel wishes to retain its democratic character and control of the West Bank (and loosely, Gaza), it may have no choice but to relinquish its Jewish character.
Hopefully we can accomplish the first one before it's too late, but I fear that number 5 may become our best possible option if we continue to defend the status quo.
Again, failure to understand what Apartheid is
"Apartheid. As I said, this is probably a rather harsh description, but we may end up with an Israel in which the majority population is unrepresented in government and faces restrictions in their rights (freedom of movement for example)."
Your definition of apartheid is "where a population (majority) is unrepresented in government and faces restrictions in movement." While this is not the Webster's definition, I'll play with it for argument's sake.
As I noted above, 98% of all Palestinians are represented by their OWN government. They vote (when their leaders let them) and carry their own Palestinian passports, recognized around the world. They have their own prisons, own laws, and own economic system and economic planners (Fayyad being most notable). They even have their own intelligence agency and para-military police force.
In terms of travel, Israelis cannot enter Palestinian controlled areas and Palestinians largely cannot enter Israeli controlled areas. Similar to Mexicans not being able to freely enter the US and Americans not being able to freely enter Mexico. This is what happens when you have two nations with two separate infrastructures. Within territory controlled by their own nations, they can freely travel along their own national roads and transit systems. While the situation in Gaza is different, due to Hamas, we are largely talking about the West Bank anyways, as in all peace negotiations (at least thus far) Israel has been negotiating with the Palestinian Authority, represented by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank. Again, Hamas is largely a non-entity in all these U.S. sponsored peace negotiations.
This is NOT apartheid. Maybe there is no good word to describe it. If that is the case, then man up and say that. Don't use loaded terms such as "apartheid" which only heat up the debate and polarize it. Be smart enough to state what is going on and describe it without ad hominem attacks. It takes intelligence to do so.
I'll go with the US-Mexico analogy because it's a good one to illustrate why it's difficult to consider the Palestinian West Bank a truly independent state. The United States rarely fires shots at Mexican youngsters across the border, and has never done so without both causing a diplomatic dust-up and apologizing.
The US also does not collect taxes and import duties for the Mexican government, we graciously allow them to take care of those tasks themselves.
The US does not maintain checkpoints in what is (on paper at least) Mexican territory, any such act would likely be seen as an invasion.
US citizens do not simply move across the border, set up a home, and demand taxpayer dollars, military protection, and legal title to the land they just expropriated in Mexico. US citizens also do not have Americans-only roads cutting through Mexico.
Mexican citizens do not have to apply to the US governments for building permits to build a structure in Mexico.
Mexican MPs do not sit in US jails.
And finally, the US does not conduct military operations within Mexico without explicit authorization from the Mexican government and intense coordination with the Mexican military.
All of these conditions apply in some form or another to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. It is for these reasons that I find it difficult to consider it independent as opposed to a controlled territory.
Uboat, still no case for apartheid I see?
When you make an accusation, the burden of proof is on you...
Your point is taken, I did miss the apartheid issue. I felt that my previous comment had made the general point, but you are correct that I did not address it directly.
The Oxford English dictionary defines apartheid as "a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race". It also leaves open the possibility of other factors for apartheid (it mentions sexual apartheid, for example).
While this is an imperfect analogy (as I said earlier) due to the fact that non-Jews do constitute a part of the citizenry of Israel and enjoy the rights thereof, it remains true that the Israeli state is largely one of a Jewish character.
If the West Bank becomes a permanent asset of Israel and its residents are refused the benefits of citizenship, which are readily available to any person of Jewish descent (I myself could emigrate to Israel tomorrow if I wished), this could be viewed as a form of religious apartheid.
In fact, if you view Judaism as a race (which many Jews and others do), it could even be an old-fashioned form of racial apartheid.
The only argument against apartheid at this point relies on a lack of Israeli control of the West Bank and its significant population of non-Israeli-non-Jews. If the two-state solution fails and Israel retains permanent control of the territory, this will be the case.
As I said, not as extreme as the initial South African apartheid in some cases, but equally applicable.
Despite your long route of getting there
you did finally agree that it is NOT apartheid. So again, people must stop using such loaded language, if they want to be taken seriously. As long as the Palestinians elect their own leaders and maintain their own nationality and national identity, there will not be "apartheid." If Israel were to make them citizens and then somehow segregate them as in pre-civil rights US South, then maybe you can make a case. However, we are going into the realm of imagination.
Pray cooler heads prevail. This is why I'm not a fan of steve walt. Well, one of the many reasons. I'm not one for defeatism in the guise of realism. Hope is a venerable ally.
As desmond Tutu said, its WORSE than apartheid
Here is the situation; Israel occupies the west bank and East Jerusalem, and in the case of East Jerusalem, claim to have annexed it, but apparently, not the people who live in it, as Palestinians there are not considered Israeli citizens. That alone is Apartheid; a situation in which people of different ethnic backgrounds within a nation (Israel tries to claim that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, although not a single other nation on earth agrees) are are treated differently. For instance, How many Palestinian building permits have been allowed in East Jerusalem? None, to the best of my knowledge. Israelis in East jerusalem are given thousands, while Palestinian homes are routinely demolished, with no compensation or assistance of any type. Ladies and Gentleman, we have apartheid. Citizens with full rights, and sort of citizens with diminished and very pliable rights, who are systematically kept out of certain areas.
Within Israel, Palestinian Israelis (nor anyone else) cannot marry Palestinians from the outside the country and ever have them join them in Israel. There are land ownership restrictions. The current ultra right wing nut job government is even talking about making Arab Israelis sign loyalty statements that affirm the Jewish nature of Israel. These things certainly constitute apartheid.
But in the West bank, we have the "worse than apartheid" system, because settlers and the IDF use apartheid as a place holder while a form of slow ethnic cleansing takes place.
500,000 Illegal Israeli settlers and growing in the occupied territories, and where ever THEY are is considered "Israel" and they continue to grow and steal land, and their clearly stated goal is to take all of it, and to remove as many Palestinians from it as they can through whatever means necessary, and they are doing just that. So, as a mixture of Apartheid and ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem and the west Bank, it is, as Desmond Tutu said, and Carter and Others have reiterated, WORSE than Apartheid. Professor Walt is simply using the less confrontational (and somewhat easier to quickly articulate) description of the actual situation.
Aparthied is really just a convenient short hand for a much worse and more complex situation.
As this debate has continued overnight (I'm on the west coast of the US, so it was overnight for me), I've noticed that AMOSYARKONI tends to rely on the same statements over and over again despite their continued refutation (and they have been refuted in other comment threads as well). So here is a list of the arguments that I will no longer be recognizing:
1) Palestine is an independent state. The Israeli military exercises complete control over the West Bank, any construction requires Israeli paperwork, and Israeli settlers seem free to move and settle pretty much whenever they want. Gaza enjoys a bit more freedom, but again the Israeli military feels free to bomb whatever and wherever they want, and Israel still controls the borders. If this is a independent state, it makes one wonder why so many people around the world want one.
2) Mandate Palestine includes Jordan. When we discuss Mandate Palestine as it applies to Israel, we speak of the mandate that existed at the time of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, which consisted only of land to the west of the Jordan River, land that was majority Arab until a mass influx of Jews at the end of World War II. Any other description of "Mandate Palestine" is irrelevant to a debate over the status of Israel.
And finally, on the topic of apartheid, I've had some time to think, and I've clarified (at least in my own mind) what I originally meant. Israel will not be an apartheid state in the same manner as South Africa, but that is only due to the different conditions present in Israel. I do not believe that the word apartheid (loaded as it is) would be too extreme to describe a state composed of Israel AND the West Bank in which only Israelis are free to exercise democratic rights.
Bantustans were clearly false creations, and the inhabitants of these places did not agree to their new "nationality" nor did the international community recognize it.
The Palestine State, if there is one, is a creation desired by the population. It is not some fiction created by Israel. The palestinians agree to and desire this state. Moreover, it is ALREADY recognized by the international community, even to Israel's dismay (nearly more countries recognize "Palestinian" passports than Israeli).
Thus, your analogy is false again.
ADDA rants on like a lunatic with made up "facts"
please keep the discussion on point and stop with your hysteria on made up issues.
AMOSYARKONI, you are correct that the Palestinians possess some characteristics that are necessary to be considered a state, however, they are insufficient to qualify Palestine as an independent state. See my previous posts for the unmet conditions. As long as those conditions are not present, the West Bank and the Gaza strip cannot be considered to be independent of Israel.
Unless these regions are separated in a viable two-state solution, these people will either become citizens of Israel or suffer a crime against humanity (apartheid, mass expulsion, or genocide).
chill with the overblown rhetoric
of crimes against humanity and genocide, to be taken seriously. Its not a full state but much more than some non-entity. Now relax.
As a Jew, raised with stories of the holocaust, I feel that I am perfectly entitled to worry about similar events taking place in the future. And, again as a Jew, I think I am even more entitled to worry about circumstances that seem to be rapidly progressing to the point where my own people will commit such actions.
Absent a two-state solution or the loss of Israel's Jewish character, I have a hard time imagining another outcome. I would be happy to hear another (less terrible) outcome if you can provide one because it is exactly this that concerns me most about the present situation in Israel.
HAHA ADDA gets her sources from some biased,
single woman living in an Arab village. Very credible facts. It's like getting your statistics on the White House administration from Rush Limbaugh.
Yes,
Everything ADDA is writing about is happening. I am not going to source it all for you, although you might use this thing called "Google" to help you.
Adda did not mention that there is a Loyalty oath that is being considered by the current regime (people like Lieberman) that Arabs would need to sign that affirms that Israel is a jewish nation, not unlike asking black americans (or Jewish Americans) to sign a form that says that the US is an anglo-saxon Christian nation. Truly frightening.
Israel will not survive much longer in the hands of the Zionists. Obama knows it and he's probably working hard to reconcile the differences between the Zionist and the Anti-Zionists Jews to save Israel and the Jewish people. In the meantime Obama plays the farce.
Why do people love prophesizing the end of israel so much?
Do you know that even the pro-palestinian left is zionist in israel? zionism in basic terms is israel's right to exist. Care to explain why you think israel is going to disappear? Or are you just a rhetoric-driven coward?
The regulars jumped on this, as usual
Your theories all have a dreadful hole - you talk about Israel as if it functions and acts like a unit. I disagree greatly - as a secular, Leftist Israeli who never had intention to rule over, control, humiliate, kill, or oppress any Palestinians, what I'm hoping for is that the secular Left will rise again in the land of Israel. No religious conversion laws, no theology in government. It happened before an it can happen again. I hope you understand where I'm coming from when I say this. This situation can and will one day be made better. It will be done so in spite of mass pessimism coming from people like you and Walt.
They get into arguments about Israel's demise
because they are anti-semites. They love to have muslim only arab states (all of them) or a "french" state which demands a unifying "french" culture. But, they hate to imagine a state for Jews.
nothing they have done has indicated that. Nothing has even been done to show their leanings. In fact this is why there are peace talks being started. Arvay is quick to call Israel right wing and extremist but just as quick to whitewash anything Iran does or the Palestinians and Hamas. Hypocrite.
There's realism and then there's defeatist pessimism
Guess which category I would place you.
Palestinian "resistance" largely consists of purposely targeting
civilians in mass casualty attacks. Israel targets military and infrastructure, NOT civilians. Oh, and body count does not make one side right. The US killed far more Taliban than vice versa. Does that mean the US is the bad side? The US also killed way more Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Again, based on your logic the US would be the bad side.
Two articles for the same subject, both full of logical and factual holes? Are they hiring? Cause I know some teenagers that know more about the I/P conflict that could use some dough.
From the NY times today - most people here are too stupid to
make the distinction between secular Zionists and religious nutjobs.
WILL Israel remain a Zionist state? If so, what kind? These are the important questions in Israeli politics today, and will be looming over the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority scheduled to begin Thursday in Washington.
The secular Zionist dream was fundamentally democratic. Its proponents, from Theodor Herzl to David Ben-Gurion, sought to apply the universal right of self-determination to the Jews, to set them free individually and collectively as a nation within a democratic state. (In fact, the Zionist movement had a functioning democratic parliament even before it had a state.)
This dream is now seriously threatened by the religious settlers’ movement, Orthodox Jews whose theological version of Zionism is radically different. Although these religious settlers are relatively few — around 130,000 of the total half-a-million settlers — their actions could spell the end of the Israel we have known.
The roots of the problem have been there from the birth of modern Zionism. The relations between Herzl’s movement and Jewish Orthodoxy were uneasy from the start. After all, the Zionist movement sought to achieve by human means what Jews for two millenniums considered to be God’s work alone: the gathering of the diaspora in the land of Israel. Most rabbis therefore shunned Herzl, but not all. Some joined the movement, even formed a party within it, based on a separation of religion and politics. For them, secular Zionism was primarily a solution to the earthly predicament of the Jews; it was not so theologically laden.
But over the following decades another form of religious Zionism came to precedence, inspired by the quasi-mystical writings of Abraham Isaac Kook, who was the chief rabbi of Palestine under the British Mandate in the 1920s and ’30s. Kook saw secular Zionists as the unwitting agents of God’s providence, advancing redemption by returning Jews to their homeland.
His son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, later focused his father’s theological ideas around a single commandment: to settle all the land promised to the ancient Hebrews in the Bible. His disciples, energized by a burning messianic fervor, took Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967 as confirmation of this theology and set out to fulfill its commandment. Religious enthusiasm made the movement subversive in a deep sense — adherents believed they had a divine obligation to build settlements and considered the authority of Israel’s democratic government conditional on its acceptance of what they declared to be God’s politics.
Although religious settlers often describe themselves as heirs of the early Zionist pioneers, they are anything but. Herzl’s vision was about liberating people, while theirs is about achieving a mystical reunion between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. Herzl’s view stemmed from the ideals of the Enlightenment and the tradition of democratic national liberation movements, dating back to the American and French Revolutions; religious settlers are steeped in blood-and-soil nationalism. Herzl never doubted that Israeli Arabs should have full and equal rights. For religious settlers, Arabs are an alien element in the organic unity of Jews and their land.
I should have been clearer, I apologize
Steve Walt does recognize Israel's right to exist, I have picked up on that. I also agree wholeheartedly that the biggest threat Israel as a secular democracy faces is radical Jewish settlers and politicians. However, if you'll care to notice, Steve Walt has made it very clear that he thinks the Israel Lobby has a "stranglehold" on Congress. This goes beyond pointing out that America's interest not aligning with Israel's, which of course would be A-ok. The notion of Obama and our whole system of government being slave to the Israel Lobby is nonsense though, and it is evident when you consider that many Israelis do not even support many of AIPAC's positions. There is no big Israel Lobby force even in Israel itself! Hence the article I posted that highlighted the difference between the groups.
why wasn't this reported in the NY Times, then?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7971196/US-condemns-deeply-offensive-remarks-about-Palestinian-leader-Abbas.html
Because the NY is controlled by sneaky rat Jews
behind the scenes with an all-powerful lobby. Satisfied, Scott? I personally read more than one newspaper for my daily news. Haaretz had a good article about your little telegraph link subject matter. Hmm...
Apartheid, No, Something Else, Yes
I have to agree that using terms like "apartheid" is not really appropriate for the Israel-Palestinian conflict and furthermore it is loaded language, sort of like comparing Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto, it sheds more heat than light.
However, I think it's fair to say that the situation of the Palestinians is not as rosy as some would portray, either.
The Palestinians have passports, and get to elect their authority. Beyond that, they have little power. All the real power is in Israel's hands.
So far the Palestinians only control Area "A", which is about 2% of the West Bank. Another 20% of the West Bank comprise various dots of Palestinian settlement, but the Israelis control these areas. And, of course, they also control the remaining 78% of the West Bank, which is where all the settlements are springing up.
I have to concur with Walt, this isn't about rightwing crazies putting up settlements and trying to take over the West Bank. This is ALSO about Israel's strategic interest in the water. Briefly, the four most important aquifers for providing water to Israel are all controlled by Israel, but all four are located in the West Bank. One aquifer is -- not surprisingly -- the site of settlements like Ariel. Another aquifer is to the East of Hebron, in an Israeli controlled region. The only significant aquifer that the Israelis cannot control is the one around Nablus in the North, but the Israelis are trying, and there will be no agreement if Israel is not allowed to control this aquifer.
In the same way, Israel controls the Jordan valley (also for the water) and Lake Tiberius (that's why they control the Golan Heights.) And they aren't going to give these up, either.
So the peace process is a shell game and Israel will not give up the West Bank and put its water use in Palestinian hands. I can't really blame them, but it does mean that there will never be a Palestinian state of any meaningful shape. Incidentally, the Israelis use almost all of the water from the West Bank aquifers, and charge the Palestinians to use some of it ..... Israeli water use per person is also much higher than Palestinian water use per person.
Another factor involved here is the use of water for industrial, developmental, electrical (steam) and other purposes. Again, Israel controls the water and has no interest in seeing the Palestinians develop any infrastructure that will use it.
There have been various solutions proposed, including desalination plants and an aqueduct from Turkey (that plan appears dead!) But none of these have been implemented and therefore you can be sure that Israel will never withdraw from the WB. They need the water, they cannot trust the Palestinians to manage it, so they will keep control of the land.
Unfortunately that means that Israel has in effect already annexed the WB. So the next step will be adressing the inequalities between Palestinians, Israeli non-Jews, and Israeli Jews. That will happen some other time. However, it's too late for a "2 State Solution." Israel is too dependent on the WB to give it up. And there are too many settlers there which the Israelis lack the political will to uproot or resettle behind the green line.
So, really, it's over.
While I disagree with some of your assessment
I am glad you also recognize that this is not "apartheid." Like you said, it is "something else." People should have the intellectual honesty or at least the intellectual sophistication to realize that the situation is unique and cannot be neatly described by terms already in use. Especially loaded terms that only add fuel to the fire. I am glad people here can come to this conclusion, even if "academics" cannot.
That being said, I would not say the 2 state solution is dead. You forget the middle east is a wild card. Anything can happen. Ask someone back in 1993 if they thought in 10 years the US would overturn and occupy Iraq. Or if they would have predicted Ahmedinijad coming to power or nearly any other event. Or, who knows what will happen when the ailing Mubarak tries to hand power over to his son?
In terms of the two state solution, I think Jordan is also a wild card. What happens when King Abdullah is gone or loses his rule, just a bit? Jordan is 75% palestinian ruled over by a small bedouin minority. It's on land taken from the Palestine Mandate. Its population has extensive family ties to the Palestinians on the West Bank. The West Bank and East Bank populations share the same dialect, culture, religion, and blood relations. They also are relatively equal in terms of economic power, education, and standards of living. Let's say the wall of the monarchy comes tumbling down at some point, then what?
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(66)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE