The late Tony Judt once wrote an essay in the NYRB that cut through the rhetoric. He argued that the settlements were too extensive, and the infrastructure was too closely networked, for a disentanglement to be possible. Since he did not believe a two state solution was still possible, and because he believed that Israel's Jewish nationalism had become chauvinistic and outdated, he pointed to the outcome he felt was inevitable: a binational state.

There were several shocked responses. The overall tenor was that, yes, Jewish national chauvinism in Israel was a problem, yes, the settlements were a problem, but there was still time to bring about the two state solution. Among those contributers were such heavyweights as Michael Walzer and Omer Bartov.

Of course, nothing has changed since Judt's article was published, SEVEN YEARS AGO, except that the settlements have continued to expand. I think it's time to realize that there will not be a Palestinian state. Israel's future is binational, and in fact, is already de facto binational.

Obama won't do anything about it, nor will any American leader. Unquestioning support for Israel is too strong among committed American Jews and Christian Evangelicals. That means any pressure against Israel will immediately create political liabilities, with zero benefits. Politicians will always avoid political liabilities unless there are preponderant benefits. In this case, the only benefit is the national interest, and it would be impossible to galvanize American politicians around that abstraction.

The only thing the US can reasonably do is keep the Israelis from attacking Iran, or launching more punitive expeditions on its immediate neighbors. As for Israel, it will continue to delegitimate itself in stages.

Possibly, just possibly, a reelected Barack Obama will stand up for peace, stand up for the Palestinians, stand up for the best interests of the USA, and stand up to the colossal Israel Lobby. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Is how the regular gang can support ethnic cleansing. Not even by another name, by THAT name. A Jew free Palestine it is, much like any other Arab state. But let's at least call it what it is.

Mr. Obama, people who elected you are 'disappointed' in you as well for not stopping aid to Israel contingent on their settlment building. It is within your power to do so, your the PRESIDENT.

George H.W. Bush forced a showdown with Yitzhak Shamir over Israel’s West Bank settlements by threatening to link $10 billion in loan guarantees to Israel’s compliance with a settlement freeze.

At the 1991 Madrid Conference, when the Israelis refused to participate, Secretary of State James Baker withheld loan guarantees and said that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir should call him when he got interested in peace.

At one point, Baker actually banned Benjamin Netanyahu, who was representing Shamir in Washington, from the State Department Building. Madrid led to a peace treaty with Jordan, the recognition of Israel by many other countries, and the first real face-to-face negotiations with Palestinians.

How about Jimmy Carter, who threatened a cutoff of American aid to pressure Menachem Begin into returning all of Sinai to Egypt, which made possible the 1979 Camp David agreement.

The Obama administration has proven once again that it is no different from previous administrations, because it will support whatever Israel accepts and will not support what Israel does not accept.

We are subsidizing Israel to the tune of $3 billion-plus per year while our own go without.

If you are 'disappointed' you deserve to be and only have yourself to blame. Until you put your foot down with Israel there will be no peace.

Two-States-For-Two-Peoples is a recipe for continued war; it will only serve to enrich the corrupt bastards who run the PA and give Israel a pretext for it's eventual invasion/destruction of the Junior State of the Two, allowing them to say :"See, we tried peace and it didn't work; let the Sabra/Shatila Solution commence!" I bet Sharon even wakes up from his "coma" to lead the armies of ethnic cleansing.

Water is the most important issue in the region--and the best way to bring about peace is with a regional water agreement. All of the countries carved from Greater Syria (Palestine/Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) must be involved. The only spare water in the region is the Litani River--this is where any Palestinian State will have to get its water (Israel and Jordan have already divvied the water from the Jordan Basin between them, leaving none for a Palestinian State; one of the sticking points at Taba was the lack of water on the 95% of the 75% of the West Bank--East Jerusalem, which makes up 25% of it wasn't on the table at Taba--that Israel offered the PA: 95% of 75% of the West Bank's land but only 3% of the water resources there).

not necessarily a realist on this, he's never been an AMERICAN POLITICS scholar, WHICH IS WHAT THE ISRAEL LOBBY REALLY ADDRESSES, he's NEVER REALLY STUDIED LOBBIES BEFORE except for in his dissertation/first book a bit, NOR HAS HE BEEN A MIDDLE EAST SPECIALIST (yes, Origin was about the Middle East, but see a lot of Arabic or Hebrew sources in it; think he did a lot of research for it in Amman or Tel Aviv?).

"it makes our tasks in places like Iraq and Afghanistan more difficult" - OK, but by what order of magnitude? And what about other things that make our tasks...more difficult? Should we change those, too? IF ISRAEL DIDN'T EXIST, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE INVENTED. That is, for one thing, it catches flak for being the most proximate Western liberal democracy to the Arab world. I'm sympathetic to the West Bank argument, and would halt settlement this second if I could, but I'm not oblivious to the damage Walt causes.

I do want to freeze them.
My problem is, that it appeared that when we did freeze the settlements the Palestinians didn't feel any urgency to get to the negotiating table, but just played it out until the freeze was a month from being over.
So now I'm more inclined to say "We'll put the freeze back on, but if it's a condition for the talks, then what do we get?".
And I'm nt a likudnik, I'm Meretz

For Mahmoud Abbas to keep talking as Israel constructs settlements would mean accepting the theft of Palestinian land.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has called on the Palestinians not to quit direct negotiations while at the same time refusing to extend a moratorium on Jewish settlement construction that ended on Sunday.

Settlers have reportedly resumed building in different parts of the occupied West Bank, making it difficult, if not impossible, for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to continue participating in the US-sponsored talks.

He is now expected to seek Arab support for a withdrawal from the talks at a special Arab League meeting on October 4.

Oslo's fatal flaw

The Israeli suggestion that Palestinians should continue to participate in the talks under these circumstances is essentially asking them to accept the theft of their land while pretending to negotiate over its future status.

The Palestinian demand for a complete halt to settlement expansion - rather than a mere freeze - is long overdue.

While the Oslo Accords stipulated that neither side should engage in actions that could prejudice the final outcome of talks, one of the major flaws of the whole Oslo process, which started in 1993, was that it did not clearly specify an end to settlement construction.

Of course, as settlement construction and the accompanying confiscation of land and displacement of Palestinians would greatly prejudice the final status of the occupied territories, Palestinian negotiators considered this to be covered by the clause. But Israel chose to ignore this - along with most of the other agreements signed since Oslo - escalating its land-grabbing and expanding its colonies across the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

As a result of this, the number of settlers has tripled and, according to an Israeli human rights group, the settlements - together with their surrounding infrastructure - control 42 per cent of the West Bank, while Israel has tightened its grip over East Jerusalem.

Thus when Barak Obama, the US president, called for an immediate halt, then back-tracked to a freeze, on settlement construction, the Palestinians saw an unprecedented opportunity to build an international consensus against the persistent Israeli colonisation of Arab lands.

Obama later dropped his demand that a freeze on settlement building be a prerequisite for the resumption of the then stalled direct negotiations and, using the threat to withdraw international and even Arab funding, effectively coerced the Palestinian side into reluctantly joining talks.

So Abbas attended the talks but insisted that the freeze be extended before delving into other issues, prompting Obama to reiterate his call that Israel extend the moratorium. When this was not forthcoming, Abbas did not immediately walk out - agreeing to give the Americans time to find a compromise that could salvage the shaky talks.

Signing away Palestinian rights

But, so far, the compromises floated by the Israeli media are in essence worse than the settlers' plans to increase construction.

One such proposal is that Israel adopts a partial freeze in smaller settlements while continuing to build in major settlement blocks.

Abbas, whose legitimacy is already under question in the absence of new elections, cannot afford to accept proposals that effectively amount to legitimising Israeli plans to annex the largest and most populated West Bank settlements.

Judging by the official Israeli rhetoric and the leaked proposals, Netanyahu seems determined to pursue the plan he once advocated to annex at least 40 per cent of the West Bank, in addition to East Jerusalem, as part of his vision for a final solution.

The Israeli side is relying mainly on US support and military force to impose such solutions on the Palestinians, in defiance of international law and UN resolutions.

As international law forbids the confiscation or annexation of lands under occupation, Netanyahu is trying to coerce the Palestinians into forfeiting their rights by signing their consent to such a move.

But while Abbas, and the Palestinian position generally, is weak - due mainly to the uneven power balance and partly to Palestinian divisions - he cannot afford to make such a major concession at any stage, let along prior to entering final status talks.

Reconciliation and retribution

Furthermore, the revival of reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah in Damascus last week has strengthened Abbas' position as president while simultaneously binding him more closely to the national goals of the Palestinian people.

If anything the prospect of failed negotiations has increased support for national reconciliation so as to prepare the Palestinian people for any potential Israeli - and possibly even American - retribution if and when the talks collapse.

Pressed by the Fatah movement to focus on reconciliation with Hamas, Abbas is now less likely to accept any compromise that would undermine those efforts.

He recently said that participating in negotiations as settlement building continued would "be a waste of time". He ought now to heed those words as it will not only be a waste of time but a waste of Palestinian land, while inflicting more suffering on the Palestinian people.

In fact, it is high time that Palestinians call not only for a freeze to settlement construction but a complete halt based on the understanding that the settlements are illegal colonies that obstruct the Palestinian right to self-determination and independence.
Aljazeera.net/english

Again, Prof Walt, THANKS! You are certainly quite right.

If/when President Obama decides to make some important changes in his cabinet, I really do hope he will hire you for making the foreign policy.

Could the commentators from both sides of the aisle (pro-against) recommend some books on this issue for me? I know very little about the history or the details surrounding the conundrum that is the Middle East peace process and would like to know more. Links would work too although I would prefer respected works instead. Thank you very much in advance for any tips or information.

was my comment for information and books removed? Can anybody provide titles to books that are considered classics on this subject? Thank you.

RC

Great article.

It's a sad state of affairs, but you have summed it up very well.

God willing, there WILL be a change of the guard in Obamas administration soon, and the possility of actual change might be on the horizon.

Sorry about the mix up, didn't see the tips, now I have! Thank you all for the great advice, going to start checking them out then I'll purchase a few, once again, thank you.