Landrum Bolling, the filmmaker and educator, sent the following email to John Whitbeck yesterday in the wake of Jimmy Carter’s Washington Post piece suggesting that the two-state solution has lost its meaning. Bolling permitted me to publish it:
I just had a good phone conversation with President Carter. He is unflappable, unintimidated by the attack from Elliott Abrams. He agrees that there is no indication that the Israeli leadership has any interest whatsoever in a viable Palestine as part of a Two State deal. He says that, contrary to his original hope and expectations, Begin within a few months after Camp David gave clear evidence that his intention was to retain all of the West Bank.
I am not sure what we who have a strong interest in a fair and peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can or should do. But of one thing I am certain: we must try to convince our government and the public that we must stop deluding ourselves about negotiating with the Israelis on a settlement freeze and on the adoption of the Two State Solution. The Israelis would be quite willing, though grudgingly, to enter into negotiations, endless negotiations, over a "settlement freeze". (It’s not something we should be pushing. That’s a sheer diversion.) The Israelis love "the peace process". They kept it going for forty years, and they’d gladly keep it going for another forty years. The just don’t want a decent, workable, fair just PEACE. It’s time we stopped playing that game. It’s futile– and basically dishonest.
Maybe I’m quibbling, but the peace process is 16 years old (if one goes back to Oslo) or maybe 18 years old (if one goes back to Madrid). The peace process is not 40 years old. While it may be accurate to say that a Netanyahu “peace process” would be meaningless (I think it’s debatable), the argument is hurt when a false number is used.
Perhaps ‘peace process’ isn’t the most accurate term to describe pre-Oslo diplomacy. Call it something else, but Israel was no more interested in peace before Oslo, the Quartet, and the rest of the nonsense. I submit that the difference now is that now Israelis see the utility of being seen and heard at the negotiating table so as not to appear to be the unreasonable party. It is not a poor generalization to state that prior to this realization they flatly refused to talk. It took a near total defeat by Egypt in 1973, which would have ended Israel, for Israeli political leadership to see any wisdom in non-gunfire communication. We were only able to drag them to the negotiating table kicking and screaming because they were freaked out that they almost lost it all.
Why have Israelis been unwilling to engage in good faith peace talks? Because Israeli political leadership has been nearly unanimous since 1967 in support of ethnic cleansing and colonization. They didn’t want to normalize relations with any neighbor who had land they coveted. For example, most Israeli pols didn’t want, as opposed to recognizing the tactical necessity for, a treaty with Egypt. It required them to return land (the Sinai) seized from Egypt in 1967. Recall that they tried to seize this same land in 1956, but were foiled by Pres. Eisenhower.
The history between 1967 and 1973 is not quite as absolute as you describe.
First, the Arab countries should not escape all responsibility. It was the Arab meeting at Khartoum that declared on Sept. 1, 1967 the “3 No’s”, “No recognition, No negotiation, No peace.”
It is true that Golda Meir’s government was not willing to part with all of Sinai as reflected in Moshe Dayan’s statement that no peace with Sharm el Sheik was better than peace without Sharm el Sheik. But whereas Golda Meir was one dimensionally stubborn in her refusal to make any concessions to the Egyptians, Dayan and Allon were much more flexible in their attitude. Mrs. Meir unfortunately was the head of government.
Israel’s willingness to give back the Sinai took bravery and flexibility on the part of Menachem Begin. The ability to show flexibility regarding the Golan Heights and the West Bank let alone Jerusalem will be far more difficult, both because of geographical considerations and historical attachment.
Yet to describe the history of 67 to 73 without mentioning the nuance and to describe Begin’s flexibility as kicking and screaming is to leave historical analysis for others and to indulge in mere rhetoric.
Jimmy Carter is the only player left from the 1970s round of peace talks. From his perspective, we may not have reached 40 year yet but we’re certainly in the 4th decade. Netanyahu is a direct political descendant of Begin through his apprenticeship under Begin’s successor, Shamir and his upbringing in the Likud so-called aristocracy. In the late 1970s, under Begin’s leadership, Ariel Sharon began the whole settler enterprise (see “The Land of the Settlers” by Akiva Eldar and Idith Zertal) . Colonizing the West Bank was Begin’s way of guaranteeing that no future Israeli Prime Minister would have to do what he did – ceding Israeli-held territory to the Arabs.
The Israelis love “the peace process” … they just don’t want a decent, workable, fair just PEACE.
Bullseye.
A one state solution would destroy and Arab hopes of a state in the land of Israel. The issue is simply that Arab population statistics are inflated by over a million while their birthright is in a free-fall and there is a net emigration from Arab areas. However Jewish women can have up to 7 babies per family and Aliyah is strong.
In 20 years there would be so many Jews between the Jordan and the mediterrenean an Arab state would be impossible.
Here you are again, with the same straw man. There is an unequivocal Israeli demand for the continued existence of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. There is no such demand from Palestinians or “Arabs”. If you read Hebrew (as your name suggests you might), you will find a good analysis of the differences between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism in Danny Rubenstein’s “Hibuk Hate’enah” (Embrace of the Fig Tree).
I could take issue with your demographic wishful thinking, but as I pointed out in my response to you on another thread, the entire issue of who has the stronger “womb” is racist and sexist.
Then you ought to read this, ImTirtzu, by Gabriel Kolko. He is an American historian who happens to be Jewish and speaks Hebrew. He is also wildly intelligent and has his facts straight about the Arab population and aliyah, which you do not.
link to counterpunch.org
It’s going to be soooo much fun when Shlomo Sands book comes out in English in six weeks time.
Divestment from the peace process is what is cynical, whether it comes from the Israeli right, the Hamas/Gaza right, or the American left.
They are each equivalent in their opportunism and/or negligence.
coveting others property has never been all that peaceful when you think about it…
You spelled that wrong Richard, it is not “peace process” it is “piece process.” Every time the Israelis sit down in “good faith” so-called negotiations, they take another “piece” of the land.
The “peace process” is another term for collaboration, throwing up a smokescreen to conceal the movement of Israeli expropriation.
Let them operate in full view, so they can be seen and despised.
“Collaboration”.
Now that is a fascist term, prohibiting ANY diversity of opinion.
For someone who claims to be so open minded and committed to mutual understanding, Richard, you really don’t know how to practice what you preach, do you?
Yes, lets call a word “fascist” and cut off all meaningful dialog because you disagree with someone’s VIEWPOINT. There’s a good example of “prohibiting ANY diversity of opinion” while pretending higher intentions. And while we’re at it why don’t we RANDOMLY capitalize words as if we really cared what they MEAN?
Self-reflection, Richard. It might help you do understand why your opinions get very little respect around here.
“do understand” should read “to understand”
I’d excuse the Palestinians who have been blackmailed by the Shin Bet to betray their own people by aiding the oppressor, but not the so-called “leadership” who does the oppressors’ work against their own people so they can come and go freely from the prison that holds them. “Collaborator” happens to be the word for that.
Whether or not Israel invests fully or sincerely in peace, is part of the question.
But, whether you do and those that you represent, is also part of the question.
Don’t evade YOUR responsibility.
Well, I don’t support “peace” above all else. I openly admit that.
“Peace” is an extremely malleable, and in this context, entirely useless term. If Israel stepped up its “security” to wall in each and every Palestinian in perfectly controlled ghettos with no chance of escape or resistance, that could arguably be called “peace” – since there would be no more violence. Heck, if Israel, for the sake of reductio ad absurdum, killed all Palestinians, the result could also be called “peace” – the proverbial peace of the grave.
I am fully committed not to “peace”, but to democracy, civil and human rights. Israel quite obviously is not – or at least it’s a lot more committed to colonization, conquest and ethnocracy.
Peace is constructed of MUTUAL acceptance, and consent. That is its definition.
War, or even solidarity, is defined as seeking one’s own goals only.
Your dismissal of peace, is a dismissal of something else than peace.
“Mutual acceptance” is likewise a malleable term prone to abuse. If I put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, we are in mutual agreement that you should better hand it over to me.
“Peace” itself is worthless without justice and regard for international law and individual rights. It is also worthless without respect. France and Germany concluded a peace treaty in 1871. Then another in 1919. You had peace between Poland and Russia in 1921. The treaty of Nanking of 1842 was a peace treaty, too.
You’re not using the word peace, you’re using the word order or quiet.
Peace, by definition is mutual consent (not a gun pointed at someone’s head). That more resembles terror or even BDS in ways.
If Palestine has the prospect of consenting to an agreement, why would you ever willingly object.
Please note that the argument “but Hamas doesn’t consent to the PA” is exactly the basis that likud states “there is noone to negotiate with”.
Strange that all the treaties I just mentioned were called “peace treaties”, then, eh? Not “quiet treaties” or “order treaties”. And all were consented to by all parties involved. Now isn’t that something?
“Consent” is worthless if produced from someone under military occupation and blockade. Israel is pointing the gun to the Palestinians’ head, which you, and I must at least admit you’re consistent, ignore again, while decrying the incomparably less threatening hypothetical sanctions against Israel.
Always remember this when arguing with Witty.
What a silly response Koshiro.
Who are you talking to? You want points? But, don’t want to address content. Why?
Do YOU want the definition of peace of genuine mutual consent? Or something different than mutual consent?
Riucahrd,
You know very well that the term “peace” is meaningless in itself. It coudl be said that even Hitler wanted peace – if he could have achieved his aims without firing a buller he could have.
Israel demomstrate time and time again that they want peace but aren’t prepared to pay for it.
And you are doing exactly the same as the right-wing Zionists that I confront often. You are divesting of the commitment to actual peace, the peace that is the rational consented intersection of two communities needs.
You prefer relentless approach that doesn’t listen to the other.
“You prefer relentless approach that doesn’t listen to the other.”
Unfortunately, Richard, that describes you. You have your villains–Hamas, the Israeli right, and American lefties. You won’t listen to criticism of Fatah (which with the US tried to nullify the elections that Hamas won) or to criticisms of “liberal” Zionists (like yourself). You don’t listen and you don’t respond. You think you’re fairminded because you criticize Hamas and the Israeli right, but what you’re doing is an oversimplification of the problem–you have your list of villains and you’re going to stick to it no matter what the evidence shows.
I say this for the benefit of others. I’ve learned that interacting with you is an exercise in frustration. If someone presents evidence that contradicts your position, you ignore it and repeat your talking points.
Except that I’ve actually read and attended presentations by radical Palestinians, and made personal contact.
Don’t play this “Richard Witty is an ostrich” mantra. It ain’t so.
I form opinions, the basis of which I am willing to map out for you.
“Except that I’ve actually read and attended presentations by radical Palestinians, and made personal contact.”
Yes Ricahrd, we all know that radicals are an accident of nature that just appear out of nowhere for no reason and without justification don’t we?
Though it was discovered that the majority fo foreing fighters heading to Iraq were moderates who’d been radicalised by the occupation, well that was just an anomaly wasn’t it?
Radicals are people with energy and strong convictions.
When they put that energy and strong conviction into some effort that is either harmful or a gamble, they waste their gifts.
Better to work hard with conviction for something that you and others can be confident in.
In what way does Israel’s continued expansion of “facts on the ground” settlements
all these years now contribute to the notion that Israel invests partially, fully, or sincerely in peace?
It’s unfortunate that Carter has trouble dealing with reality. It is what made him a terrible president. The Palestinians have rejected every peace offer and will continue to do so. The last offer made by Olmert unfortunately proved the Palestinians have no interest in peace.
“Olmert says he offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the West Bank, along with 5.8 percent in land swaps and a Gaza-West Bank safe passage corridor. Abbas recalls the offer as 97 percent. Both agree that Israel agreed to accept a small number of Palestinian refugees, with Olmert adding that he rejected the right of return and offered limited return to Israel as a “humanitarian gesture”. Olmert also offered to, in effect, internationalize the Jerusalem Holy Basin. Olmert’s interviewer reports that Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat “confirmed that Olmert had made the offer. . . . [Olmert] was serious.” ”
link to bitterlemons.org
Amazing how these Israeli prime ministers keep almost reaching deals with the Palestinians, just before getting themselves booted out of office (or assassinated). I wonder what deal Netanyahu is going to almost make just before losing the next election. I guess we can always blame the Palestinians. By the way Erekat also said the offer had some serious problems that needed to be worked out. How convenient that Olmert never had the chance. Definitely proof of Palestinian intransigence.
Israel’s actions (which you can easily check on a decent map of the settlements) tell a different story.
And an arbitrary percentage number is, of course, not telling us anything. The spider web of link roads between settlements and a long strip of territory covering the border to Jordan would probably add up to less than one percent of the West Bank – and would yet entirely void any sovereignty a Palestinian state might aim to have.
This does not even touch subjects such as airspace, water, border control, military sovereignty, and so on, which are all also important points in a hypothetical treaty.
The only thing we can learn from these botched negotations is that future negotiations should be placed under third-party scrutiny and carefully documented.
The issue of contiguity was in fact the main problem mentioned by Erekat (who is paid to be unrealistically optimistic, by the way). See Akiva Eldar: link to haaretz.com
Further proof of Palestinian intransigence can also be found in the fact that they let a little thing like Olmert’s decision to kill nearly 1,400 Gazans (including some 1,000 non-combatants), blind them to his dazzlingly magnanimous peace plan.
You make excellent points, Koshiro, most especially about the tiny area actually displaced by the colonial road network.
Yeah, a secret peace offer made by a lame-duck PM with virtually no support in the Knesset and about to be indicted–can’t imagine why the Palestinians wouldn’t have taken that one seriously.
Julian – Carter was a very good friend of Israel when he was President – now Israelis hate him and slur his memory for mentioning the rather uncontentious fact they operate apartheid. There is a lesson in there for all who defend them now.
Indeed Michael,
It goes to show how Israel treats it’s friends. Obama kisses their buts, and still they demonize him.
The Palestinians haven;t rejected every peace offer Julian. You know it’s a lie.
Olmert “says” he offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the West Bank, but we are only talking about pockets of land disconnected from one another right? How about I take a block of Swiss cheese and divide it with you by giving you the holes? Would that satisfy you?
Youprobabylalso believe the rubbish about Arafat walking out fo Camp David, when the reality is that both Clinton and Barak knew the deal they offered was rubbish. The only time Israel has made a legitimate offer was a Taba, whortl after Camp David, when both sides stated they were on the verge of an agreement. It was Barak who cut the meeting short becasue of the impending election, which he lost to Sharon and the rest , is history.
As Dov Weisglass told the world, Sharon’s plan was to suspend the peace process in formaldehyde.
It helps when you know your history.
Julian, you can have 97% of the two dollars in the front of my wallet, just don’t ask for the real 97% of everything in my wallet…lol
I think a more fitting analogy would be to say that I give you access to 97% of my house (which was actually your house before I took it from you by force.) The 3% you can’t access happen to include all doors to the outside as well as all water taps. Another 5% or so are security zones which you can only access with my explicit consent – mostly all doors and other entrances between the various rooms in the house.
Oh, and by the way, I have a final say in what you can watch on TV, can open all your letters, wiretap your phone and inspect – and confiscate at my leisure – all goods you might want to mail-order.
Ain’t I generous?
Just to refine your excellent analogy a little, Koshiro, we are talking about 97% of about a fifth of your house that I took by force – say a couple of back rooms and a bit of the basement. If you’re really good and never ever complain, I might give you partial access to a bathroom (under escort and cctv surveillance, of course). Otherwise, I guess you’ll just have to hold it in.
You could keep going couldn’t you?
Even if you’re really good and never ever complain, I might stil decide to kick you out of the few rooms you are allowed into to make room for my friends and relatives.
I will also demand that you recognize my right to have your house and any effort on your part to resist will be interpreted as proof that you are not interested in being civilized, but are a bad neighbor who is addicted to vilence and misery and would rather put your family, friends and chilren in harms way than work towards harmony.
Having stolen your house and denied your livelyhood by destroying your means of earning a living, I will also boast how civilized and educated I am, even though I am also receiving a massive welfare cheque that pays for all my living expenses.
Jeff Halper’s description of the Israeli Matrix of Control is very apt here.
Excellent piece. Thanks tree.
Hopefully the third installment of his Middle East peace books will be titled “One State”
bless you Jimmy, keep going.
Here’s a good article by John Whitbeck, the recipient of Landrum Bolling’s email. It’s from last November:
link to counterpunch.org
The tragedy of this story, is that in 15 years, after the single-state solution had been adopted by “resistance” and “solidarity”, following Israel’s uncontested annexation of the West Bank (and renunciation of Gaza, still blockaded though), someone will come up with the idea, “the single state approach is not working, there are too many problems. I have a better idea, a new one. How about two states at roughly the 67 borders?”
In 1986, after Begin had announced that he had functionally annexed the West Bank, that was the time for the single-state agitation (but much less roadblocks and settlements than now). Then, in 1987, the intifada asserted “we desire to self-govern” giving credence to a two-state emphasis. Then in 1992, the two-state idea was accepted, in idea if not in treaty.
Now, after the “leadership” has declared “there are two many problems associated with the two-state solution, I have a better idea”.
The Palestinians themselves are a ping-pong ball, hit back and forth, victims to their own “leadership”‘s incapacities.
When, all along, they could have been, and finally now are, institution building.
But, the leader of that effort is called an “Uncle Tom”, by the loud, vain but idle.
That’s beyond pathetic Richard. It’s not even a good effort at revisionism.
Israel knew in 1967 that they were vilating the Geneva Conventino by annexing the West Bank and building on it. They ignored iternational law.
In 1982, the PLO gave their support for a 2 state solution and Israel rewarded that declaration by invasing Lebanon and going after them.
It’s not that a single state solution is a better idea, it’s that a 2 state solution has been made impossible because Israel gambled that the Palestinians would go away and be absorbed into the neighboring Arad states, if they were squeezed, murdered, humiliated and brutalized enough. That didn’t happen. The Palestinians didn’t follow the script and now Israel faces ruin.
The Palstinians have tried institution building, but what good is it when those institutions are destroyed every few years when Israel decides it needs to teach the Palestinians a lesson?
Your biggotry shines through every time.
Why don’t you read what I wrote, before the bigotry accusation?
You don’t think that in 15 years, dissenters will say “I’ve got a great idea”?
There are two problems to be solved, in I/P: [1] getting to a better “final” situation than the current Israeli-created undemocratic, apartheid-style single-state “solution” (this is called searching for “peace”) and [2] improving the lives of Palestinians living under occupation (since occupation may be expected to last indefinitely).
I’d suggest that people with energy for either of these consider seeking peace as if there were no problems of occupation and simultaneously (and with greater energy) seeking a lawful and humane occupation as if there were no peace process.
If the US or EU or UN will move at all to impose anything on anyone, it is less likely to impose a peace treaty than to impose adherence to international humanitarian law on Israel in regard to the occupation. Progressives should encourage such an imposition. The US/EU/UN could require Israel to remove the wall and remove the settlers NOT as elements of a peace “deal” but merely because they are illegal during the course of a military occupation.
Forcing Israel to remove the wall and settlers does not force Israel to “make peace” but does remove from Israel the illegally-obtained benefits of occupation. And the process of removing 500,000 settlers under duress (over, say, a 1-year period) might be expected to catch Israel’s attention and suggest a peace “deal” which would allow some settlers to remain (perhaps those closest to Jerusalem).
I have little hope that “progressive” activists could help achieve such an intervention, but have no hope at all that we could help achieve “peace” since that requires a greater intervention.