Arab-Israeli Conflict: Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
1.- So Jordan gets fucked up with nothing in return? Jordan would never accept such a deal specially after giving up the West Bank.

2.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

3.- You mean only the US can protect Israel from a two-state solution. Without the US veto Israel would had been forced to accept it long time ago.

4.- Yeah, in the age of social media, you cant really hide ethnic cleansing like before.

1) Yeah pretty much we can give them so money and all but who cares. They don't have to accept it we force it on them just like has been done for thousands of years and still is to this day.

2) Could happen again. No Soviet Union exists that is going to side with Jordan or anything.

3) Yes

4) There are ways to steer and guide social media, you simply ban/shut down criticism much like Facebook is doing in Germany with so called 'fascist' speech' being banned. And you can also have search engines filter to your liking. Of course this would require the compliance of facebook and google which cannot be assured. In any case, social media is a major factor in the west but less so the rest of the world (imo) people might see something via youtube/liveleak/ or other video or tweet showing videos or articles. However, unless the mass internet based and TV based media focuses on a topic most people will be unaware of its existence or the true nature of the issue.

This isn't even mentioning that so long as their is little political will or organization then the masses typically shut down and shut up.
 
1) Yeah pretty much we can give them so money and all but who cares. They don't have to accept it we force it on them just like has been done for thousands of years and still is to this day.

2) Could happen again. No Soviet Union exists that is going to side with Jordan or anything.

3) Yes

4) There are ways to steer and guide social media, you simply ban/shut down criticism much like Facebook is doing in Germany with so called 'fascist' speech' being banned. And you can also have search engines filter to your liking. Of course this would require the compliance of facebook and google which cannot be assured. In any case, social media is a major factor in the west but less so the rest of the world (imo) people might see something via youtube/liveleak/ or other video or tweet showing videos or articles. However, unless the mass internet based and TV based media focuses on a topic most people will be unaware of its existence or the true nature of the issue.

This isn't even mentioning that so long as their is little political will or organization then the masses typically shut down and shut up.

Done by who? do you honestly believe the US would invade a sovereign nation, commit ethnic cleansing and outright alienate the entire world over Israel?
 
Done by who? do you honestly believe the US would invade a sovereign nation, commit ethnic cleansing and outright alienate the entire world over Israel?

With the UK and other allies yes I do.

I can honestly (in my head at least) see a scenario which justifies exactly that. In the meantime though what is likely to happen until that point is full Israeli annexation of Area C and expulsion of Palestinians who reside in Area C to Areas (A) and (B).

The biggest mistake (or maybe its not a mistake and was planned deliberately) is that the Israelis did not push Palestinians eastward after the 1967 6-day war and again after the Yom Kippur war.

separation_barrier_israel_west_bank.gif



The dark green is Area C as I am sure you know.



A much smarter plan I think would of been to push Palestinians into the Jordan valley and let the Palestinian state be in the Jordan valley and much of what is


map3.jpg



Basically give the pink and red areas to the Palestinians. It would be A LOT easier to fence off/wall off and would give Israel even more of a buffer zone/area to prevent Palestinian incursions into Israel proper. The Jordan valley is also resourceful in its own ways and pretty.

Israel-colonisation-ofJordan-Valley-MAP.jpg



The rest of their state if they want it (or if it should be larger) can exist in Jordan. A contiguous Palestinian state is the only logical option in my opinion. And maybe, just MAYBE include a road/highway corridor from Jericho to East Jerusalem.



But collectively speaking I feel Palestinians have lost their chance and right to having all of the West Bank.
 
Just give Florida to the Jews

cut it off and ship it to the Mediterranean Sea
 
Netanyahu pledges to promote 'responsible policies' at Trump meeting
By Jeffrey Heller | JERUSALEM
Feb 12, 2017
r


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday he would present "responsible policies" in talks with U.S. President Donald Trump, signaling to the Israeli far-right to curb its territorial demands in the occupied West Bank.

Netanyahu leaves for Washington on Monday and will see Trump at the White House on Wednesday for their first meeting since the Republican's inauguration last month, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and policy toward Iran on the agenda.

During his 2016 election campaign, Trump indicated his presidency would be a boon for Israel and tough on Palestinians, after an acrimonious relationship between his predecessor Barack Obama and Netanyahu that included clashes over settlement building and Iran's nuclear program.

Trump talked of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, naming an ambassador who backs Israeli settlement on occupied land which Palestinians seek for a state and exerting no pressure on Israel for peace negotiations, which collapsed in 2014.

But he has since toned down his pro-Israel bravado ahead of Netanyahu's visit, a change that could help the prime minister keep in check ultra-nationalist coalition partners calling on him to push a more militant agenda.

"To believe there are no restrictions now would be a mistake," Israel Radio quoted Netanyahu as telling members of his Likud party with respect to settlement expansion now that Trump is in office.

On the eve of Netanyahu's departure for Washington, Education Minister Naftali Bennett, leader of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party, publicly cautioned him not to mention the words "two-state solution" in talks with Trump.

Bennett's party is also promoting the annexation of parts of the West Bank.

Netanyahu has stopped short of endorsing those positions - steps that would put Israel at odds with long-standing U.S. and European policies - while speaking of building in major settlement blocs Israel intends to keep in any future peace deal.

In public remarks to his cabinet on Sunday, he seemed to urge the far-right to tone down its expectations.

"I understand there's great excitement about this meeting (with Trump)," he said. "But ... my primary concern is Israel's security (and) strengthening our solid alliance with the United States."

That, Netanyahu said, "requires responsible policies, policies that are given careful consideration - and that's how I intend to act." He did not elaborate.

His comments appeared to echo remarks Trump made in an interview published on Friday in the pro-Netanyahu Israeli daily Israel Hayom. Calling on Israel "to be reasonable with respect to peace", he said settlements "don't help the process".

 
Last edited:
Both Trump and Israel talking out of both sides of their mouths here. The use of the word "responsible" is almost completely meaningless, except that it signals they will brand their next moves as "responsible" ones because the US will bless them. The obvious expectation here is more Israeli creep, more conflict. We've heard all of this before, time and again, and it's bullshit.
 
Germany's Merkel cancels high-level meeting with Israel
13.02.2017

18798403_303.jpg

German Chancellor Angela Merkel canceled a high-level meeting with the Israeli government, in part over the country's latest legislative attempt to legalize settlement activity in the West Bank, local media reported on Monday.

An Israeli government spokesman confirmed the meeting had been canceled by the German side, saying it was due to the "variety of international appointments within the context of the German presidency of the G20."

Although officials said the annual meeting between both governments' cabinets had been forfeited this year due to the German federal election in September, Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" reported it was also due to Merkel's alarm over the settlement legalization law.

However, the daily reported that another unnamed senior Israeli official noted that the law "had not been brought up" when Berlin notified Israel of the cancelation.

The law, passed by parliament last week, allows for the expropriation of private Palestinian land by retroactively legalizing 4,000 settler settlements homes.

The move has been criticized by the international community for undermining a UN-backed two-state solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

'Profoundly shaken'

In the wake of the legislation, Germany's foreign ministry slammed the retroactive legalization of settlements in the West Bank in a notably frustrated statement.

"The confidence we had in the Israeli government's commitment to the two-state solution has been profoundly shaken," the ministry said.

"We follow these developments with great concern and have repeatedly voiced our view. Building settlements in the occupied territories, also in east Jerusalem, contravenes international law and jeopardizes a lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians," it added.

Domestically, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin has denounced the legislation, saying it could create an environment in which Israel is "seen as an apartheid state."

"Sovereignty over the states needs to happen collectively, for all its citizens," Rivlin said, according to local broadcaster i24. "It can't be that in one area of land these are separate codes of law for Israelis and non-Israelis."

 
Last edited:
Israel's Right demands Netanyahu, Trump discuss West Bank annexation
By Gil Hoffman
February 13, 2017

ShowImage.ashx

A dozen Likud ministers and MKs and dozens of activists called upon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday to use his meeting with US President Donald Trump Wednesday to achieve support for construction and annexation in Judea and Samaria.

Held under the banner “Netanyahu, the Likud is backing you on the Right,” the ministers and MKs signed a petition calling upon him to maintain the values of Likud.

Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein attended, as did ministers Gilad Erdan, Yariv Levin, Ze’ev Elkin, Ophir Akunis, Ayoub Kara, and Gila Gamliel, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, and MKs Yoav Kisch, Yehudah Glick, Nurit Koren, and Amir Ohana.

While each speaker stressed that the event was intended to strengthen Netanyahu, they each issued demands and expectations as to the outcome of the meeting.

“This is a historic time, and if our Likud government does not handle it correctly, we will be crying for generations,” Shomron Regional Council head Yossi Dagan said. “We expect new settlements to be built for the first time in 26 years. We proved we are loyal to the prime minister but we demand that he be loyal to what he has been saying for years. We don’t need American permission to build anywhere, especially in Jerusalem. We expect you to return with good results for Israel and all the settlements.”

Dagan accused Netanyahu of displaying weakness by being silent as Trump backtracked on his support for moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

His fellow settler leader Avi Roeh displayed statistics indicating that construction in Judea and Samaria has fallen significantly over the past eight years.

Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev told the crowd that in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War, this was the year to apply sovereignty to the settlements that make up what she called Greater Jerusalem and to enable a massive amount of people to move to Judea and Samaria.

“Trump understands his mission is to make America great again, and we understand that our mission is to restore our security and that comes from strengthening Judea and Samaria,” she said. “There should be news in the next year of reaching 1 million Jews in Judea and Samaria.”

Edelstein warned that what he called “the Gaza disengagement disaster” happened when the US had a pro-Israel president in George W. Bush.

Minister-without-Portfolio Ayoub Kara advised Netanyahu not to bring up the Palestinian issue when he meets with Trump, “because it is irrelevant.”

“The two-state solution has failed due to Palestinian rejection,” Hotovely said. “We can’t be the Palestinians’ hostage. We have to do what is right for us.”

Sources close to Netanyahu expressed frustration with the event and its timing.

“It undermines the prime minister and strengthens Bayit Yehudi,” complained coalition chairman David Bitan, who boycotted the event. Pressuring the prime minister doesn’t help anything.”

 
Last edited:
This could stir some more shit up.

AS CONDITIONS in Gaza grow more and more dire, Hamas seems to be intent on proving that Israel's blockade of the area is wise and necessary. Yahya Sanwar, whose election reflects the ascendancy of Hamas' military wing, is considered a strongman "who speaks in apocalyptic terms about perpetual war with Israel" and who's ordered the detention, torture and murder of fellow Palestinians, Haaretz reports. You can be sure that any money entering Gaza will now go to building tunnels, developing rockets and kidnapping Israelis.

http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/.premium-1.771390
 
Israel PM Netanyahu meets with President Trump in Washington today:

 
Last edited:
President Trump backs away from commitment to Palestinian state
By Luke Baker and Matt Spetalnick | WASHINGTON
Feb 15, 2017​

r

President Donald Trump on Wednesday dropped a U.S. commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a longstanding bedrock of Middle East policy, even as he urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to curb settlement construction.

In the first face-to-face meeting between the two leaders since Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, the Republican president backed away from a U.S. embrace of the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, upending a position taken by successive administrations and the international community.

"I'm looking at two states and one state, and I like the one both parties like," Trump told a joint news conference with Netanyahu. "I can live with either one."

Trump vowed to work toward a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians but said it would require compromise on both sides, leaving it up to the parties themselves ultimately to reach the terms of any agreement.

But he offered no new prescription for achieving an accord that has eluded so many of his predecessors, and Palestinian anger over his abandonment of their goal of statehood could scrap any chance of coaxing them back to the negotiating table.

Dropping a bombshell on Netanyahu as they faced reporters just before sitting down for talks, Trump told him: “I'd like to see you pull back on settlements for a little bit.”

The right-wing Israeli leader, who may have expected more decidedly pro-Israel rhetoric as the two sought to get past years of feuding with Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, appeared startled.

Netanyahu insisted that Jewish settlements were “not the core of the conflict” and made no commitment to reduce settlement building in the occupied West Bank.

Trump echoed Netanyahu’s calls for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state – something they have refused to do – and to halt incitement against Israelis.

But even as Trump promised to pursue peace between the two sides – who have had no substantive peace talks since 2014 – he offered no new ideas for unblocking the peace process.

Setting an initially chummy tone, Trump greeted Netanyahu on a red carpet rolled out to the White House driveway. The two leaders smiled, shook hands and chatted amiably before heading inside the executive mansion, accompanied by first lady Melania Trump and Netanyahu’s wife Sara.

Among the questions that figured prominently on the agenda was the future of the two-state solution – the idea of creating a Palestine living peacefully alongside Israel.

Foreshadowing Trump’s policy shift, a senior White House official said on Tuesday that peace did not necessarily have to entail Palestinian statehood. Palestinians responded by warning Trump that such a move would seriously damage U.S. credibility.

Giving a vague, meandering response to a question on the issue, Trump suggested that he could abide by whatever path the two parties decided. "I'm happy with the one they like the best," Trump said.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Wednesday against abandoning the idea of a two-state solution, saying there was "no alternative".

Netanyahu committed, with conditions, to the two-state goal in a speech in 2009 and has broadly reiterated the aim since. But he has also spoken of a "state minus" option, suggesting he could offer the Palestinians deep-seated autonomy and the trappings of statehood without full sovereignty.

At the news conference, he never ruled out a two-state solution, but also made it sound as if it was an almost impossible ideal. He said there were preconditions for it to happen, including the Palestinians’ recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and Israel retaining security control "in the area west of the Jordan River" - which would encompass all of the West Bank.

Netanyahu and Trump shared several warm handshakes during the news conference, especially after Trump’s opening remarks, when he said the United States was Israel’s greatest friend.

But Trump also managed to catch Netanyahu off-guard, at one point saying that if a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict was going to be reached “both sides will have to make compromises”. The president then turned to Netanyahu and said: “You know that, right?” Netanyahu looked momentarily startled and replied with a chuckle, “Both sides.”

The two leaders agreed that there was an opening for enlisting Israel's Arab neighbors - who share its concerns about Iran - into any future peace process, though they offered no specifics on how that could be done. But a retreat from the principle of a two-state solution would cast doubt on the chances for cooperation from the broader Arab world.

PALESTINIANS ALARMED


Palestinians reacted with alarm to the possibility that Washington might ditch its support for an independent Palestinian nation.

"If the Trump administration rejects this policy it would be destroying the chances for peace and undermining American interests, standing and credibility abroad," Hanan Ashrawi, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said in response to the U.S. official's remarks.

"Accommodating the most extreme and irresponsible elements in Israel and in the White House is no way to make responsible foreign policy," she said in a statement.

Husam Zomlot, strategic adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Palestinians had not received any official indication of a change in the U.S. stance.

"It’s another nail in the coffin of the peace process, which already had a lot of nails in it," said Martin Indyk, a former Middle East negotiator under Obama and now at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

The one-state idea that Trump referred to would be deeply problematic for both sides. One concept would be two systems for two peoples, which many Palestinians would see as apartheid. Another version would mean equal rights for all, including for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank, but that would compromise Israel’s Jewish character.

For Netanyahu, the talks with Trump are an opportunity to reset ties after a frequently combative relationship with Obama.

The prime minister, under investigation at home over allegations of abuse of office, spent much of Tuesday huddled with advisers in Washington preparing for the talks. Officials said they wanted no gaps to emerge between U.S. and Israeli thinking during the scheduled two-hour Oval Office meeting.

Trump, who has been in office less than four weeks and whose foreign policy apparatus is in disarray following the forced resignation of his national security adviser Michael Flynn, brings with him an unpredictability that Netanyahu's staff hoped would not impinge on the discussions.

The two leaders, who seemed to strike up an emerging “bromance” in social media exchanges since the election, sought to demonstrate good personal chemistry face-to-face as well, both sporting smiles and exchanging asides.

Meetings with Obama were at best cordial and businesslike, at worst tense and awkward. In one Oval Office encounter in 2011, Obama grimaced as Netanyahu lectured him in front of the cameras on the suffering of the Jewish people through the ages.

 
Last edited:
Beyond the Failed "Two-State Solution"
by Guy Millière
February 14, 2017

2017.jpg

In his June 4, 2009, speech in Cairo, Barack Obama compared Israel, the only open and truly pluralistic county in the Middle East, to South Africa in the apartheid years.


The "peace conference" held in Paris on January 15, 2017 was supposed to be a continuation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (voted on December 23, 2016), and John Kerry's speech five days later. It was supposed to isolate Israel even further and provide a new step towards the declaration of a "Palestinian State". It was a total washout. The final declaration, prepared in advance, was not ratified, and the resolution published at the end was so watered down it was meaningless. The United Kingdom's representatives refused to sign it. US Secretary of State John Kerry chose to remain silent. French President François Hollande delivered a speech full of empty words, praising resolution 2334 and desperately stressing the need to "save the two-state solution".

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the conference as the "death throes of yesterday's world". He may be right.

The Obama years are gone. The Trump years will be different. US President Donald J. Trump stated on March 21, 2016:

"No one should be telling Israel that it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away... When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one... There is no moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists."

The Republican Party platform adopted on July 12, 2016 went in the same direction, clearly stated an opposition to "any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms", and called for "the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so". It added that the Republican Party is "proud to stand with Israel now and always". It did not refer to the "two-state solution".

One of Donald Trump's first decisions was the appointment of David Friedman as US Ambassador to Israel. Friedman has said often that he wanted the US Embassy in Israel to be located in Jerusalem, and regarded the two-state solution as a "dangerous illusion."

The two-state solution is much worse than a dangerous illusion. It places on the same level a democratic state and a rogue entity that glorifies terrorism and uses its media and schoolbooks to incite hatred and the murder of Jews. The two-state solution does not demand that the Palestinian Authority (PA) change its behavior; it therefore endorses what the PA does.

The two-state solution is also based on falsehood. It claims the rights of a "Palestinian people" that does not exist. In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO leader, said bluntly that the Palestinian people were invented for political purposes. More recently, Mahmoud Abbas described Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs as "one people living in two states."

The two-state solution invokes "Palestinian territories" that also do not exist. There has never been an Arab or Muslim "Palestinian State." Palestine is a name the Romans gave to Judea in the land of Israel in the Second Century AD, after they crushed a Jewish revolt and were already then trying to negate a Jewish presence. Since then, the region has never enjoyed any autonomy. During the British Mandate (1922-1948), the Arabs never used the word "Palestine" and called the area Balad esh-Sham (province of Damascus). For 19 years (1948-1967), the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt, and Judea and Samaria were occupied by Jordan. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never said that Egypt and Jordan were "occupying powers," and never described the Gaza Strip and Judea-Samaria as "Palestinian".

Israel ceded to international pressure by agreeing to recognize the PLO as an interlocutor and, at the time of the Oslo Accords, entering into a hollow "peace process." The "two-state solution" became the basis for subsequent negotiations.

The price paid by Israel and the Israeli people quickly became extremely high. After the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority launched a far greater number of bloody attacks against Israel.

Only the construction of the security barrier (2003-5) ended the carnage. About 500 suicide bombings and other assaults took place between 1994 and 2002. More than one thousand Israelis lost their lives. Many more were wounded or maimed.

The PA obstinately refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which means it never recognized Israel. It never gave up demanding the return of "refugees": 500,000 people who left Israel in 1948, when the Arab countries launched a war of extermination against the Jewish state, most of them with no roots in the Israeli land. They became the only refugees in the world who are denied the right of resettlement. A few thousand are still alive, but most of today's so-called "Palestinian refugees" were not born on Israeli soil, have never set foot in Israel and know nothing about the country to which they are supposed to want to "return", despite what Palestinian propaganda told them. They now number more than six million. It is not hard to guess what their "return" would mean.

All peace proposals made by Israeli leaders were rejected by Palestinian leaders, without even a counter-offer.

Anyone who pays attention to the Palestinian media knows why: when speaking Arabic, Palestinian leaders say that "Palestine" will go from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea. Israel does not exist either on Palestinian maps or on the Palestinian Authority logo. The PA is supposedly non-religious, but Palestinian TV teaches jihad to children, and encourage them to "shoot Jews" because it is pleasing to Allah. Palestinian imams at public events explain that the Palestinian "war with the descendants of the apes and pigs [i.e., Jews] is a war of religion and faith," and add that all "Palestine" is a part of dar al-islam and is to remain "under Islamic dominion forever." Denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem and in the land of Israel has always been a central component of PA propaganda.

Many Israelis desperately continue to believe that peace with Palestinian Authority is possible. But more than half the Israeli population no longer entertains that illusion.

For decades, many Western leaders have relentlessly demanded more concessions from Israel, and have spoken and acted as if they did not know what the Palestinian Authority really is and what Palestinian leaders really want. They have been accomplices and liars. They behave as if they genuinely want the destruction of Israel and the murder of Israeli Jews. They have Jewish blood on their hands and many skeletons in their closet. They continue to finance Palestinian propaganda, Palestinian terrorists, and international and Palestinian NGOs that support the genocidal Palestinian agenda. They even gave money that was used to reward the murderers of Jews. Some of them seem to long for what Giulio Meotti calls a "new Shoah," and seem disappointed that it has not yet occurred.

The Obama years were particularly horrendous. In his June 2009 Cairo speech, Barack Obama compared Israel, the only open and truly pluralistic county in the Middle East, to South Africa in the apartheid years and to the American South at the time of slavery. He repeatedly called for Israel's return to "pre-1967 borders", but never said that they were not borders, but merely the 1949 armistice lines. He used the term "resistance" to speak about Palestinian terrorism. He described settlements as the main obstacle to peace, thereby endorsing the Palestinian Authority's desire for the ethnic cleansing of Jews. When he spoke of attacks on Israelis, he never explicitly condemned the attackers and never said they were Palestinians.

The European Union and most European countries supported all the positions taken by Barack Obama.

Furious after the results of the January 15 conference, President François Hollande said he had to "send a warning" to the Trump Administration. Fortunately, a warning sent by a failed president in a country where nearly six hundred areas are no-go zones under the control Islamic "enforcers" control does not matter much.

On January 20, 2017, a new era began.

The acceptance of the Palestinian glorification of terrorism, the incitement to hatred and murder of Jews, the acceptance by Western leaders of the falsifications of history on which the Palestinian cause rests may also end.

In the early days of his term, still only in its third week, President Trump decided to halt U.S. funding to UN agencies and other international bodies that grant the Palestinian Authority full membership. He added that any organization "controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism" will lose US aid. U.S. funding to the PA will certainly be curtailed soon. In a much-discussed statement, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, said that the construction of new settlements "may not be helpful", but added immediately that the Trump administration "don't believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace".

A "Trump effect" could lead to political change in Europe. More and more Europeans are tired of policies of appeasement and submission to Islam. Pro-Jewish and pro-Israel sentiments are rising in most European countries.

Sunni Arab countries still verbally support the Palestinian cause, but the rise of Iran in the Middle East and the stated ambitions of Tehran's mullahs concern them more. If the United States becomes energy-independent, all oil-producing Muslim countries will also have other concerns than the Palestinian leaders' demands.

In a recent article describing the "eight great powers of 2017", Walter Russell Mead and Sean Keeley wrote: "Israel is a rising power with a growing impact on world affairs." Israel is increasingly unwilling to submissively accept arbitrary decisions and pressures.

The recent solution offered by Daniel Pipes, "Israel wins, Palestinians lose", could take shape.

The period of "the two-state solution" as the only solution is probably over. The period when the two-state solution could be imposed on Israel from outside also probably belongs to the past.

The failed two-state model could be replaced by alternative solutions requiring the dismantling of Palestinian Authority and its replacement by something infinitely better for Israel and the Arab population of the area.

"Terrorism is successful," wrote Alan Dershowitz in 2003, " when the international community gives in to the demands of terrorists."

The leaders of the Palestinian Authority might learn the hard way that the time when terrorism works is over.


Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

 
Last edited:
Why Netanyahu must stand up to Israel's right
By Alan Johnson
February 15, 2017​

Israel is at a crossroads: two states or not two states.

Of course, the world does not expect a deal to be made tomorrow -- or even soon. These days, no one is that naive. But it does want to hear from Israel that there has been no paradigm shift, no retreat to the old dream of a Greater Israel by annexation, and no abandonment -- once recognition, security guarantees and the formal end-of-claims by the Palestinians have been secured -- of the commitment to Palestinian statehood.

Because this significant shift is what is at stake, it really matters that Israel's Naftali Bennett has been making threats again.

The fiery 44-year-old chairman of the pro-settler, hard-right, religious-Zionist party Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home), and the governing coalition's controversial minister of education, thundered this warning in advance of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington: "If [US President Donald] Trump and Netanyahu even mention a Palestinian state, the earth will shake."

Israelis have taken to wondering aloud if Bennett, with his eight seats in the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, is the real prime minister and Netanyahu, with his 30 seats, is his ambassador to Washington.
On issue after issue, Bennett is perceived to have dragged Netanyahu and Israel to the wilder shores of the right and away from the two-state paradigm.

For example, when IDF soldier Sgt. Elor Azaria shot dead an already wounded Palestinian assailant in the West Bank city of Hebron, Netanyahu initially sided with the stance taken by then-Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon and the IDF commanders, saying: "What happened in Hebron does not represent the values of the Israel Defense Forces."

After pressure from Bennett and the hard-right, who whipped up a public campaign in defense of Azaria, Netanyahu backtracked, making a personal phone call to Azaria's parents and saying, "We back our soldiers."

Yaalon was soon after removed as defense minister and replaced by Avigdor Lieberman, who had joined street demonstrations in support of Azaria. Yaalon has since complained bitterly that "the Prime Minister unfortunately switched sides, and decided to embrace the soldier's family. That's his business, not mine. I decided to support the commanders and I was left alone in that war."

The most significant example of the Bennett effect was the recent passage, to the world's horror, of the Regulation Law, retrospectively legalizing Jewish settlements built on private Palestinian land. Initially Netanyahu opposed it. "Netanyahu warns ministers: Regulation Bill could bring us to the ICC," ran the headlines. And then he voted for it.
A pattern is being established.

Bennett appears principled, while Netanyahu appears pliable, a man with a wafer-thin Knesset majority who can be dragged against his better judgment and his own long-held policy positions into Bennett-land.

Bennett appears pro-active. "My strategic objective is to get Netanyahu to backtrack on the Bar-Ilan speech" in which he committed himself and Israel to the two-state solution, Ynet reported Bennett as saying in private conversations.

Netanyahu risks looking reactive: he appears to be for the two-state solution, against it, or unsure, depending on the audience and the short-term political need.

Here are eight reasons why Netanyahu should now say that enough is enough:

Alienating Israel's Western allies

Bennettism (support for more and more settlements, dreams of annexation, opposition to a Palestinian state in any circumstances) is doing serious damage to Israel's place in the family of nations. Germany -- one of Israel's closest allies -- let it be known last week that it had been "profoundly shaken" by the passage of the Regulation Law.

Alienating regional allies

Bennett is undermining the possibility of a regional peace effort between Israel and the "Sunni pragmatic" states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, who understand Netanyahu's caution perfectly well. None of these nations believe a final status deal and a two-state solution with the Palestinians is possible tomorrow, but they will never agree to live with Bennett's plan to annex most of the West Bank to Israel.

Israel's international reputation

Bennett is eroding Israel's place in global public opinion. In desperation, even Israel's president, Reuven Rivlin, has warned in recent days that the Regulation Law "will make us look like an Apartheid state" because the government "cannot" apply Israeli law "to territories not under its sovereignty."

An open goal for Israel's enemies

If Bennett manages to make the two-state solution impossible then a bi-national reality -- one state between the river and the sea for two peoples -- will be created, and in time that will result in Israel having to choose between being Jewish or democratic. On that, former US Secretary of State John Kerry was dead right. The "Boycott Israel!" crowd are licking their lips.

Appeasement never works

Giving way to Bennett has only emboldened him, and he now thinks he can dictate the terms of the relationship between an Israeli prime minister and the new US president. For this, the word chutzpah was invented.

Trump just doesn't want to hear it.

While he hardly campaigned in poetry, it's all prose now, when it comes to Israel. As campaign trail talk of moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv -- a longstanding Israeli dream and Palestinian nightmare -- trails off into mumbling as the possible consequences become clear, Trump's belief that he can make "the impossible deal" is being aired more confidently.

There is simply no common ground between Bennett's proposal that Israel annex Area C of the West Bank (which is 60% of the entire territory) and Trump's statement that "they (settlements) don't help the process. There is (only) so much land left. And every time you take land for settlements, there is less land left ... I am not somebody that believes that going forward with these settlements is a good thing for peace."

In a world of strongmen, leaders mustn't look weak

Neither Trump nor regional actors respect weakness, and right now Bennett is making Netanyahu look weak: a man being led, not a leading prime minister, looking for shelter from the rain made by Bennett.

The ball is in Netanyahu's court

Netanyahu has the opportunity to make the weather with Trump and those regional actors who seek new relations with Israel in the face of the shared threat from Iran and jihadists. Both men have hinted -- I think wisely -- that creating a new regional paradigm for Middle East peace is the way forward.

They know that the "get in a room and sort it out in ten months" paradigm has been tested to destruction. It has failed four times in the last 20 years: Camp David in 2000, Taba in 2001, Annapolis in 2007-08, and the Kerry talks in 2014.

To create that new regional approach to the two-state solution, and to secure the future of the Zionist dream of a Jewish and democratic state, Netanyahu must first decide to call Bennett's bluff.

 
Last edited:
This Bennett guy comes across as a real charmer. No form of reasonable deal is going to be made if someone like that has any significant power in Israel, but by the looks of it he has a foot and an arm inside already. Sigh.
 
This Bennett guy comes across as a real charmer. No form of reasonable deal is going to be made if someone like that has any significant power in Israel, but by the looks of it he has a foot and an arm inside already. Sigh.

Cause and effect. When the Center refuses to get things done, it give rise to those far out on the fringe and normalize their existence.

Had this shitty mess been sorted out in any of those golden opportunities in the last hundred years, we wouldn't have Jewish Home's settlements nor Hamas' terror attacks.

The real question that no one at the U.N want to confront is "why do everyone involved kept rejecting our peaceful-coexistence Two-State idea?"
 
Last edited:
Settlements, water, control over areas etc. are one thing.

But the other thing is the geographical proximity in Jerusalem of everything that is key to the religious dimension of the conflict.

jeru-wide-temple-mt-view-0.jpg


I really recommend a trip to Jerusalem to everybody who gets the chance. Go to the Mount of Olives. The picture above doesn't do reality justice, it's really very very close together. Standing on the Mount of Olives, you will recognize the complete impossibility of compromise there.
 
Is 2-State Solution Dead? In Israel, a Debate Over What’s Next
By ISABEL KERSHNER
FEB. 16, 2017

17Israel1sub-superJumbo.jpg

An Israeli soldier last month on a street that separates an Israeli settlement and a Palestinian neighborhood inside the West Bank city of Hebron.


JERUSALEM — The huge billboard images appeared overnight in Tel Aviv: a menacing crowd of Palestinians making the V for victory sign and bearing a legend in Arabic, “Soon we will be the majority.”

One interpretation of that inevitability was explained in Hebrew for those who dialed the number on the billboard: If Israel does not act to separate itself from the Palestinians, it will be less secure, less democratic and less Jewish. The provocative — many said racist — campaign was kicked off last month by retired Israeli generals and senior officers to shake Israelis out of apathy.

President Trump accomplished something similar over the course of just a few seconds on Wednesday, when, standing beside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, he declared that he was “looking at two-state and one-state” formulas for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“I like the one that both parties like,” he added, seemingly overturning decades of American policy centered on the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Purposefully or not, Mr. Trump had suddenly implied that the long-proposed solution of two states did not really matter.

By Thursday, Israelis and Palestinians were feverishly debating what might come next, still confused about American policy after Mr. Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki R. Haley, reasserted that the administration “absolutely” supported two states.

What were the viable options other than the two-state solution? One state with equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians? A dominant Israeli state alongside a defined Palestinian region with statelike but curtailed powers? Would either side ever settle for less than everything?

Over decades, Palestinians have watched Jewish settlements spread over land they consider theirs for a future state and concluded that Israel did not intend to concede it. Many of them, particularly those in Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, still do not recognize Israel at all.

Many Israelis believe that they have repeatedly made good offers that were refused, and that Palestinians are irrevocably split between the West Bank and Gaza, with no unified leadership to negotiate with. Good will, they say, has been met by rocket fire.

Now, the Israeli political establishment, moving rightward, clearly believes it is the time to put its thumb on the scale.

“I think what the president and prime minister were saying was any solution is possible and now we have to look at alternative solutions, and there are alternative solutions,” said Michael Oren, a deputy minister for diplomacy in Mr. Netanyahu’s office.

These, Mr. Oren told reporters, could involve “interim measures and recognition of the fact that there may be a two-state reality on the ground, which may not conform to what we know as a two-state solution, but would enable the Palestinians to lead their lives in prosperity and security” — and also benefit Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu, weakened by corruption investigations and under pressure from right-wing politicians who oppose a Palestinian state, has recently been evasive about his support for a two-state solution. It depended, he said in Washington, on what the Palestinians had in mind: “What are we talking about? Are we talking about Costa Rica, or are we talking about another Iran?”

Mostly, Mr. Netanyahu appears to want to solidify Israeli control over the occupied West Bank and manage the conflict. That basically means maintaining the current situation of Palestinian cantons divided by growing Israeli settlements and surrounded by Israeli forces.

Mr. Netanyahu has referred to it as a “state-minus” — implying the Palestinians would get some statelike autonomy, and that would be enough. Critics call it a creeping one-state reality, and certainly not the “ultimate deal” that Mr. Trump says he hopes to achieve.

Some analysts chalk up Mr. Trump’s flippancy to a lack of knowledge, because one thing many Palestinians and Israelis do agree on is that a one-state formula will not bring peace.

“One state is not an option,” said Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian political scientist at Birzeit University in the West Bank, noting that Israel, which was established to give Jews self-determination, would never give all Palestinians the vote. “We are talking two states or no solution, a continuation of the status quo,” he said.

Shaul Arieli, an Israeli expert on political geography who prepared maps for past negotiations with the Palestinians and is a member of Commanders for Israel’s Security, the group behind the billboard campaign, said “one state is impossible” for Israel. Demographically and economically, absorbing millions of comparatively poor Palestinians would destroy it, he said.

Results of a survey of Israelis and Palestinians released on Thursday, put out jointly by Tel Aviv University and Israeli and Palestinian research centers, indicated that 55 percent of Israelis still support the notion of a two-state solution, while support among the Palestinians dropped to 44 percent. But the numbers on both sides rose significantly when they were offered additional incentives like a broader regional peace between Israel and the Arab world. Among Palestinians, support rose for the ability to work freely in Israel even after the establishment of an independent state. The survey included a representative sample of 1,270 Palestinians and 1,207 Israelis.

Israelis are increasingly fearful of the prospect of a Palestinian state at their doorstep. They see other areas of the Middle East in chaos. After Israel unilaterally left the Gaza Strip in 2005, they watched as the militant group Hamas, which rejects Israel’s existence, seized full control of the territory after winning legislative elections. And they know that without the West Bank, Israel is just nine miles wide at its narrowest point.

There is also the emotional issue for those who identify the West Bank as the heart of the biblical Jewish homeland promised by God.

The Israeli idea of Palestinian statehood never included all of the attributes of full sovereignty. Israel insists on a demilitarized state, and Mr. Netanyahu says the Israeli military has to keep overall security control.

Together with other so-far-intractable issues — like the fate of Jerusalem and of Palestinian refugees — many experts have long said that the maximum Israel can offer does not meet the minimum Palestinian requirements.

Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian official, noted this week that the two-state solution “represents a painful and historic Palestinian compromise of recognizing Israel over 78 percent of historic Palestine.”

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, an interim government that has held sway in parts of the West Bank since the 1990s, is weakened by internal struggles and threatened by his rivals in Hamas.

Mahmoud Zahar, a hard-line member of Hamas and one of its founders in Gaza, said of Mr. Abbas in an interview this week: “He is wasting his time. He is wasting our time and helping the Israelis expand settlements. He is a traitor. He is a spy.”

When the former United States secretary of state, John Kerry, came up with a proposed framework accord defining the principles of a comprehensive two-state agreement after months of negotiations in 2014, Mr. Abbas did not respond.

Since then, Israel has approved plans for thousands of new settler homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and has moved to retroactively legalize settler outposts that were built throughout the territory. The measures have further entrenched the occupation, now in its 50th year since Israel captured the territory from Jordan in the 1967 war.

A growing number of right-wing Israeli ministers, including from Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party, are pushing to annex the settlements that Israel intends to incorporate within its borders under any future deal. Israel has also invested heavily in roads and infrastructure connecting and serving the West Bank settlements, now home to some 400,000 people.

Yet supporters of the two-state solution insist it still could be executed.

Both sides have recognized that it would require adjustments along the 1967 lines. Mr. Arieli, the political geographer, said Israel could keep 80 percent of its West Bank settlers within its borders by swapping territory equal to about 4 percent of the West Bank. Many of the remaining 20 percent of settlers — roughly 30,000 families — would most likely agree to move back into Israel for compensation, he said.

The numbers can also be deceptive, and some experts insist that much of the change on the ground in recent years can be reversed.

About 50 percent of the growth of the settler population has come in two large ultra-Orthodox settlements, Modiin Illit and Beitar Illit. Both are considered swappable, being close to the 1967 line. Jews mostly went there for cheap housing, not ideology. Together, these two settlements have about 130,000 residents — a third of the total settler population of the West Bank.

In some more outlying settlements, Mr. Arieli said, the population was decreasing as Israelis were “voting with their feet” by not moving in, or moving out. Settlement leaders attribute the drop to pressure from the Obama administration that limited the construction of new homes.

Mr. Khatib, of Birzeit University, agreed that a two-state solution was still physically possible “with some creativity, like swapping.” But, he said, “It won’t remain so for long.”

What is lacking is political will of the leaders on both sides.

Nahum Barnea, a leading Israeli columnist, wrote in the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Thursday that if Mr. Trump were “slightly more informed,” he might have realized that it was not an issue of one state or two states: “The two sides, in practice, have chosen a third option: not to agree.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-two-state-solution.html
 
Israel and the Palestinians: What are alternatives to a two-state solution?
By Colin Shindler Emeritus professor, SOAS
Feb 17, 2017

_94690617_29f6b8d0-6dd9-4f26-a48b-65b46d62d56c.jpg

When President Donald Trump commented "two states and one state - I like the one that both parties like" about an eventual Israeli-Palestinian settlement, it suggested a rethink, and perhaps a downgrading, of the time-honoured "two-state solution" of past US administrations.

But what are the other options?

_94690608_west_bank_settlement_large_624map-2.png

Origin of partition

To understand where the concept of sharing or dividing this piece of land comes from, it is important to look at its recent past.

Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism arose during the same period of history with claims to the same territory. This rationale was the underlying basis for an equitable solution, based on partition and a two-state solution.

In 1921, TransJordan (now the state of Jordan) was formally separated from Palestine (now Israel and the West Bank/Gaza). A UN resolution in 1947 proposed a second partition, this time of the territory west of the river Jordan.

One part would be a state where Zionist Jews constituted a majority, the other where the Palestinian Arabs would be a majority of the population, but the latter rejected the idea.

Competing claims

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Jordan occupied the West Bank. Egypt in turn controlled Gaza.

During the Six Day War in 1967, Israel defeated Jordanian forces and conquered the West Bank. Similarly Egypt was forced to leave the Gaza Strip.

While the Israeli Left was willing to return territory to Jordan for regional peace, the rise of Palestinian nationalism under Yasser Arafat and the ascendency of the Israeli Right under Menahem Begin initially proposed polarised solutions - either a Greater Israel or a Greater Palestine, but not a two-state solution.

The Israeli Right argued that there were nationalist and religious reasons for retaining the West Bank. Some on the Israeli Left wanted to build socialism on the West Bank through the construction of a network of kibbutzim.

Israeli security experts, meanwhile, believed that the West Bank provided strategic depth to slow down an invading army. All this led to a burgeoning settler movement.

Two states

Yasser Arafat started to move towards a two-state solution after 1974 (though some saw this as a ploy) and established a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, following the Oslo Accords with Israel in 1993.

Successive Israeli prime ministers - Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu - have all accepted the idea of a Palestinian state, but have differed in terms of what it should actually comprise.

Recent advocates of the two-state solution have suggested an Israeli border near the West Bank barrier, which would encompass a majority of Israeli settlers. This may well be the basis for a plan eventually put forward by the Trump administration.

Despite proclamations of a State of Palestine by Arafat and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, it has never materialised as a de facto entity, and despite Mr Netanyahu's declaration of support for a Palestinian state in 2009, it is unlikely that any right-wing government would permit its emergence for both ideological and security reasons.

The takeover of Gaza in 2007 by Hamas produced a divided Palestinian Authority. The nationalists controlled the West Bank while the Islamists ruled Gaza.

_94690610_gettyimages-2711840.jpg

Yasser Arafat achieved self-rule for Palestinians but no state

In the past decade any reconciliation has been based more on public relations than on public reality. This has led to the idea of two Palestinian states or autonomous areas for the Palestinians.

One fundamental difference between the two sides has been support for a two-state solution by Palestinian nationalists, but no unambiguous statement to this effect from Palestinian Islamists.

Their objection is essentially theological in that the entire territory from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan should be under Islamic rule with no land being ceded.

One state

A one-state solution is based on the premise that it is highly unlikely that today's 400,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank will leave voluntarily or be evacuated forcibly.

Those on the Israeli far-left regard such a unitary state as being a state of all its citizens.

However critics on the Israeli side point out that within a few years the number of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza and the number of Arab citizens of Israel itself will have reached parity with the number of Jews in Israel and in the West Bank.

Given that the Arab birth-rate is higher than the Jewish one, if voters vote according to their ethnic origin, then this means the end of Jewish self-determination in their own nation state.

Some on the Israeli far-right favour either a full or partial annexation of the West Bank while restricting democratic rights for the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, an interim solution of a bi-national state would see both national groups working constructively within the same state, but one which offers protection for their political and legal rights and preserves their national identity.

Nationalism however has proved to be a powerful force in recent times with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia into individual nation-states - and some have argued that while a one-state solution is logical in a theoretical sense, the national enmity between Israelis and Palestinians would produce an unworkable entity.

Three-state confederation

The idea of a confederation between Israel, Palestine (West Bank/Gaza) and Jordan has been debated ever since 1948.

A former Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban, vigorously promoted a Benelux-style economic union solution. The Israeli Labour government after the Six Day War adopted variations of a solution known as the Allon Plan, which effectively partitioned the West Bank between Israel and Jordan with remaining territory under local Palestinian autonomy.

However, it was the rise of a Palestinian national identity in the 1970s which scuppered this idea in favour of a Palestinian state. Ever since, both Jordan and Egypt have shown little enthusiasm for reassuming responsibility for the West Bank and Gaza.

Autonomy

Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin proposed the idea of administrative autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza shortly after coming to power in 1977.

Self-rule for the Palestinians meant that Israel would be responsible for security and foreign policy while ideologically retaining a claim to Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

While limited autonomy was granted under the Oslo peace accords, it was probably viewed by both sides as an interim solution. The demise of the peace process has frozen any further progress.

The eventual shape of a final settlement has therefore yet to be determined.


Colin Shindler is emeritus professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. The author of numerous books on Israel, his The Rise of the Israel Right (Cambridge University Press) was awarded the gold medal in The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's 2016 Book Prize competition.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39002001
 
Israel, the Two-State Solution, and Humanity’s Flaws
By Ronald A. Lindsay, Center for Inquiry
02/17/2017

8233420-3x2-700x467.jpg


People are still scratching their heads over what President Trump meant to signal the other day when he indicated he was open to a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Did this remark signal a departure from long-standing American policy or was Trump merely mentioning the one-state solution to give Israel some leverage in future negotiations? Or did Trump mean anything at all? With our stream-of-consciousness executive, it’s difficult to reach a firm conclusion.

But we should take this opportunity to consider the merits of the two-state versus the one-state solution.

Let’s forget history for a moment, or at least as much history as is not absolutely necessary for understanding the present situation of Israel and the Palestinian people. Let’s also pretend for a moment that we are all rational, forward-looking beings, who are committed to universal human rights, including the right to a democratic government.

Under these parameters, it’s obvious that a lasting and acceptable solution to the continuing, simmering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians must include the establishment of an economically viable, independent Palestinian state comprising most of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with some means of reliable access between these two areas. Of course, Israel is entitled to guarantees of its security and to the means of preserving its character as a homeland for the Jews. No state can be expected to enter into a peace agreement that results in its annihilation.

One implication of maintaining the Jewish character of Israel is that Palestinians would have to give up the “right of return.” An estimated 700,000 Palestinian Arabs left (fled or were expelled from) their homes in what is now Israel during the 1948 war that immediately followed the creation of Israel. Some of these individuals are still alive and they and their descendants now number about four million. Even if only a substantial fraction of these individuals take up residence in Israel, they would in a very short time alter the Jewish character of Israel. In exchange for giving up the “right of return,” these individuals should receive generous economic compensation.

Can anyone doubt that, in broad strokes, the foregoing provisions are what should be contained in a Middle East peace agreement? What is the alternative? The one-state solution? If this meant that Palestinians were given the full complement of rights enjoyed by Israeli citizens, including the right to vote, and if the Palestinians expressly consented to such a unitary state from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea, then such an arrangement would be morally acceptable. But that clearly is not what the Israelis have in mind. Precisely because Israel wants to maintain its Jewish character, it will never give full citizenship rights to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. So denying an independent state to the Palestinians would achieve peace only at the point of a gun and at the cost of sacrificing Israel’s commitment to human rights and democracy. As former Secretary of State Kerry stated, “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic—it cannot be both.”

2017 marks the fiftieth year that Israel has occupied the West Bank. Is this occupation to continue for another fifty years? Indefinitely? Americans, and a number of other Western countries, have long supported Israel in large part because it is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. That reason for supporting Israel will evaporate if the Israelis restrict democracy to its citizens while treating the Palestinians like serfs.

Permanent occupation of the West Bank will also drive the Palestinians into the arms of Hamas and other militant groups. If the only alternatives are to submit to a foreign occupier or fight, many will choose the latter alternative.

Nothing in the foregoing should be interpreted as placing sole blame on Israel for the failure to achieve a lasting peace that would recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. If we feel the need to blame anyone, there’s plenty of blame to go around. In particular, the Palestinians have been ill-served by their leaders. The working plan for a peace agreement during the 2000 negotiations, which took place during the waning days of the Clinton administration, contained the broad strokes outlined above. Arafat balked at the proposed deal. Although accounts of those negotiations differ, apparently sticking points included giving up the right of return and most of East Jerusalem. If that’s true, then Arafat was unrealistic or imprudent (or perhaps just not interested in a deal).

I have deliberately refrained from going back beyond 2000 in providing historical analysis. Even more than other long-lasting ethno-religious conflicts (think Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Sudan), the conflict in the Middle East has been burdened by the weight of history and the hatreds and mutual recriminations that history has engendered. Each side has some alleged grievance caused by the villains on the other side, which is then rebutted by the other side’s understanding of events and by their own corresponding grievance. Israel has the West Bank because it launched a preemptive attack in 1967! Israel was surrounded by Arab armies on all sides and did launch a preemptive attack on Egypt; however, it only invaded Jordan (which then controlled the West Bank) in response to a Jordanian attack. The Israelis drove the Palestinians from their homes in 1948! There would have been no war, and no refugees, had the Arab states agreed to accept the United Nations resolutions creating both an Israeli and a Palestinian state. Ultimately, Israel is the result of Great Britain’s 1917 Balfour declaration, and Great Britain had no right to carve out a territory for the Jews in land Great Britain did not even possess. (The Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire, with which Great Britain was at war at the time.) Partially true, but there would be no Palestine either had the British not defeated the Ottoman Empire and then received a League of Nation’s mandate for the territory now encompassing Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Exacerbating the tendency of both sides to nurse decades-long grievances is the overlay of religious conflict. Although control over the holy sites, in particular the Temple Mount area, in East Jerusalem was not the only stumbling block in the 2000 negotiations, it was a significant point of contention, with the parties squabbling over who would have sovereignty or mere custody over this or that portion of this area. This is perhaps the saddest part of this seemingly intractable conflict. If there is a deity worth worshiping, that deity can’t give a damn about who has sovereignty over land where some temple, mosque, or church is located.

No, the Israelis are not to blame; the Palestinians are not to blame. The Middle East conflict is a microcosm of humanity’s flaws, including the difficulty of putting aside past grievances, resentments, and short-term political gains to pursue what both reason and compassion unmistakably mark as the only path forward. Can a just two-state solution still be achieved? I hope so, but I’m not optimistic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...d-humanitys-flaws_us_58a6f523e4b0b0e1e0e20972
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top