Ehud Olmert's piece on the peace process in today's Washington Post is accompanied by this cool graffiti off the Wall– and includes this telling phrase:
"a complete freeze on settlement construction — impossible to completely enforce."
My policy is to keep both feet off the ground on this site, but I feel there is a shadow of the one-state solution in this piece. Not a word about the Jewish state, though something about "Jewish population centers" in the West Bank. And Olmert talks about the two-state solution chiefly in historical terms. As something he worked to try to achieve, and the Palestinians didn't accept. And a hint, too, in his desire for Israel and Palestine to be part of the world community, that democracy is the answer…
Related posts:
- Olmert Chooses Not to Use Bush’s Word (Appeasement)
- In the ‘Times,’ Judt hints what he said baldly in ‘03: 2-state solution is finished
- Why preserving a ‘Jewish state’ should not be an argument to save the two-state solution
- One State for Palestine Conference – ‘Israel’s massacres are the price of maintaining a Jewish state’
- Olmert tries a Hail Mary in the WaPo by resuscitating the ‘generous offer’ Predictably, he fumbles.
{ 26 comments }
You know though, I've learned to be hesitant at this. It is all smoke and mirrors IMO. Talk about a one state or a two state solution, while deliberately and quietly removing Palestinians from their land.
Oh Phil, I think you're completely wrong on this: Olmert was the guy who hinted that continued colonisation of the West Bank would lead to fully blown Apartheid (assuming the Palestinians wouldn't have been expelled of course) and thus the end of Israel. No, here he's just wobbling back to the centrist Israeli position: 'let's stall for as long as we can get away with it!' Unfortunately I can't read the whole article: it's subscription.
Although I'm apprehensive about how it would play out, I think a single state solution is inevitable. The status-quo is a Bantustan situation maintained with an increasingly brutal counter-insurgency police/military state. It is simply unsustainable. Even the US will eventually turn away from it in disgust. A two state solution requires the ethnic cleansing of large numbers of Jewish settlers, which–baring the sudden appearance of a new Ben Gurion, and a truly radical shift in Israeli thinking–is a political impossibility. Without on the ground knowledge, I don't know as much about Palestinians as I would like, but I have been very impressed by their ability to maintain social order, their regard for education, and their remarkable skill at guerrilla organization. They are an impressive people, and would have far more to contribute to a modern state than say, the Haridim. My own dream for Israel is an undivided land where people of the three great Abrahamic religions can live and worship in peace.
Olmert concludes: "Settlement construction should be taken off the public agenda and moved to a discrete dialogue, as in the past. This would enhance our bilateral relations and allow us to deal with the essential issues: the political process; preventing Iran's attempt to obtain nuclear weapons; eliminating Islamic extremist terrorism; and creating the necessary dialogue for normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world." In other words, let's continue what we did under Bush Jr. Yeah, that's the ticket, blather about strategic concerns, anything to allow spreading more "facts on the ground" as we've been doing since the Six Day War. Uncle Sam, you just keeping paying us to do that. Hopefully the last of the Pals will leave our land. BTW. you should also knock off Iran for us. Thanks.
can't really agree, david. i would like to be optimistic and say that the occupation and brutalization of the palestinians is unsustainable, but I see no evidence of that. The israelis have pretty much eliminated all meaningful resistance. no one has been killed in israel in ages and the IDF is generally safe from all harm. Conditions for the Palestinians are the worst they've ever been. Meanwhile, the most liberal president the awful united states can ever expect to have is pretty much maintaining the status quo and providing a green light for continued dispossession and ethnic cleansing. …puzzled, by the way, with your bizarre implication that removing the nazi settlers from their entirely illegal settlements would constitute ethnic cleansing. resolution of the conflict? I agree it is too late for the two state solution. i think it is also too late for a one state solution that allows for a jewish majority in israel and jewish control of the military and economy.
re: ethnic cleansing… pure tosh. it would simply be undoing colonialism and reinstating the original native inhabitants.
I totally agree with gert on this one..
I don't know whether the bit about Palestinians not accepting Olmert's proposals is Phil's narrative or Olmert's – but either way it's a false claim….
I agree that one state that is neither a "Jewish state" nor a "Muslim state" is the best long-term solution. However, it's going to be a long time before the Israelis are ready for that, if they ever get there at all. I don't agree that a real Palestinian state would require "ethnic cleansing" of Jewish settlers. For one thing, "ethnic cleansing" is an emotionally loaded term that implies forcible evacuation or slaughter of people who have a right to be where they are. But the settlers have no right to be where they are. They are invaders, living outside the legal borders of Israel in Palestinian territory, and the repulsion of invaders is very different, by any sensible moral standard, from "ethnic cleansing." But furthermore, I don't see a need to expel the settlers. Instead, they should be given a choice: They can voluntarily move to Israel, or they can stay right where they are as long as they accept that in doing so they will become citizens of the state of Palestine living under Palestinian law. Most of them will probably prefer to move to Israel, but that's their choice, not something forced on them. There is a further complication here that some of the settlements are not new construction, but occupations of Palestinian villages. What to do about these becomes a matter to be settled through negotiation if the Palestinians are willing to compromise in order to reach a lasting peace more easily. It's simplistic, though undeniably tempting, to be morally absolutist and say, "All the settlements must be abandoned and all land stolen from Palestinians must be returned," but politically it might be sensible to compromise to some extent, with some Palestinian families receiving compensation in cases where it's easier to arrive at a resolution that way.
If I recall well, Olmert at that time said something about 'sleepwalking into a de facto One State', as something wholly undesirable. Phil's getting wires crossed here, IMHO.
Olmert was the worst Israeli Prime minister with the lowest approval ratings. His words mean less than Carters
Thanks for the replies. Part of the problem is that I can't imagine that the Palestinians would accept a hostile settler presence in their own state. I'm using the term "ethnic cleansing," mainly to point out how removal would be perceived by many Israelis and for the hard line Zionists in the US, and how serious the political resistance to removal would be. I agree that they have no legal right to be there, and their forcible removal would be justified under international law. Unfortunately international law doesn't seem to mean much in Israel. If Obama really convinces the Israelis that the free ride is over, and is able to split the Jewish community and break the power of the lobby, removal might be possible. He'll have to do this in any case to make any progress, and he still has a long way to go.
Two states was always a dead letter because it is taken as a given that the Palestinians would be denied the means to defend themselves from aggression, with a modern army, anti-aircraft, etc. Without that, they haven't got a state. Without that there is no way israel will halt its murderous aggression. What we most need is a leftwing george bush. Yes…precisely that! We need a president as devoted to halting the illegal israeli occupation as bush was in attacking Iraq. We need a president who will completely ignore the wishes of congress and assume executive war making privileges in oder to force israeli withdrawal and maintain peace through an international force established to patrol the region indefinitely and prevent hebraic aggression.
1. I thought that the Palestinians have already said that the settlers can remain. To flip this over – would the settlers leave just as the French settlers left Algeria? 2. Are you sure that under international law there would be justification for forceful removal? I'd like to hear what section says this as I would have guessed that the opposite was true.
The colonization of land acquired through aggressive war (or even defensive war, but that wouldn't apply to Israel) is prohibited under international law. Removing illegal settlements can in no way – beyond fanatical Hasbara doctrine – construed as 'ethnic cleansing'. There has been a long standing resolution that confirms this – 242 – ( pro-Israel propagandists have tried to warp into meaning the opposite). Israel is completely to blame for colonizing territory that had no right too. It was a crime – one that ironically has it's roots in Nuremburg after Nazi Germany's attempted colonization of lands acquired through aggressive war. But really edwin – it shouldn't be to hard for you to just use your common sense. If I stole your house and kept you out of it by threatening you with my heavy arsenal of guns – just because I'd been there for a few years and had become comfortable wouldn't make my stealing your house and threatening you any less a crime.
While the colonization of land is indeed prohibited, it is not clear to me at all that settlers can be forced off their homes under international law. This is very different than the right of Palestinians to return home. In fact, International law does not allow expelling people when returning home. Instead, it states that if one's home is occupied then you are entitled to a similar home in the same area. International law does not make refugees in the name of justice. It does not decide who's claim is most valid. It is one of the reasons why the Zionist argument that their claims pre-date the Palestinian claims is completely bogus. Even if it is true (which it is not) keeping the Palestinians from their homes is still against international law. I am not an expert on international law, but I don't think that what David_F said was correct. If it is correct I would really like to see what international law says. You, on the other hand, are extrapolating which is a definite no-no.
Considering it was never moral for the UN (by what 3 swing votes? Ethiopia's, Philipina, and Micronesia's?)to simply give native land away in the first place, or allow it to be taken, how "morally absolutist" is it to demand uprooting of merely all settlements?"
Truth is various tiny country leaders were phoned, and a Jew pretending he was speaking for Truman, said Truman would not give them any foreign aid of any kind unless the tiny country voted for Partition. This is revealed in the Truman Library Archives. Truman was really annoyed when he was so informed. But he still unilaterally recognized Israel (not a "Jewish state"–he crossed out those words in his prepared letter statement) because he needed zionist money for his whistle stop campaign and the Jewish block vote in NY, and 3 other states. He rushed to it to get all the credit, a most practical insurance policy for his continuing in POTUS office.
High hope for Obama calculating he can do this once he wins a second term; after that, he can ignore his own party and the bipartisan AIPAC whore congress. Meanwhile he can keep working towards such a set up.
stevieb is correct in that occupation responsibilities and do's and do's don't under all the relevant post 1945 international documents intend to prevent any repeats of what Nazi Germany did and the no longer acceptable whys therefore, during is occupation of various lands to the East. Three months after the Six-Day War when Theodor Meron, legal counsel for the Foreign Ministry, sent a memo to Foreign Minister Abba Eban, a copy of which he forwarded to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol: "My conclusion," Meron wrote, "is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Meron himself was a survivor and eye-witness to the Nazi occupation. Those who argue against Geneva, 242, etc, base their theory on the Balfour Declaration, highlighting the rights given the Jews in that seminal document–but ignoring the conditional restrictions completely, all those equally expressed or implied protecting the Palestinians. It's an international lawyer's playground. What is unchallenged is that Europe and the US have consistently in official policy viewed the settlements as as a giant roadblock to peace and they do not favor any of them. The (Israel Lobby) reality of course has allowed them to spread, and since Israel always only honors UN resolutions rubber-stamping its goals, while otherwise thumbing its nose at the UN, we are in our present condition.
Sorry, I meant "do's and don'ts" Is=its as in "it's occupation of various lands to the East."
"Conditions for the Palestinians are the worst they've ever been." under Israeli occupation possibly but its a cake walk compared to the Egyptians and Jordanians whose occupation was far more brutal…..
I'm using the term "ethnic cleansing," mainly to point out how removal would be perceived by many Israelis and for the hard line Zionists in the US did you think we would NOT notice it was a theme of the luntz propaganda 09 israel dictionary? nobody said this until about 2 weeks ago, and it was heavily covered in the press and the blogs. it is your own credibility that comes into play when you use these 'fresh' and paid for rtwing zionist talking pts. anyway it totally cheapens the meaning of what ethnic cleansing is. removing an occuaption and its appendages is not ethnic cleansing.
They wouldn't be refugees – they would live in Israel. Not a big deal really. Makes sense too. Alot of settlers are quite wealthy in fact – some are also the Israeli poor subsidized by the Israeli government to live there. There would be no refugee problem. I'm sure there has been resolutions in the past that carry on today for Israel to remove settlements as soon as possible, something to that effect. Look it up- shouldn't be to hard to find if you're that interested. But we both know there would be no refugee problem….
Olmert is just writing the sort of mendacious op-ed that Martha Minow writes (Moral Turpitude at Harvard L-School). Just as Minow's lies were coming straight from the IDF, Olmert's were coming straight from The Israel Project (p. 12).
Here is the text:
Olmert's text probably came from The Israel Project, and I would not be surprised if Frank Luntz wrote it.
Comments on this entry are closed.