By now, readers must know that I possess one of the hallmarks of weak judgment, I believe whatever the last person I talked to has told me; and in that spirit, let me pass along what a friend told me yesterday in favor of the two-state solution. Here's what he said:
Obama seems determined to get a handshake on the White House lawn between Abbas and Netanyahu. He has in spite of the humiliations not dropped the issue, he knows how central it is, and smart people who have met him say that he "gets" it. Hillary's spending eight hours with Netanyahu shows Obama's determination, now that the midterms are passed. He seems to believe that taking a stand will not hurt him or help him in his hope of being reelected. And he is buying the Israelis off on the Iran piece by giving them planes that can reach Tehran.
The deal will not make a contiguous or viable Palestinian state? Obama is determined to get past that; states in this day and age are less important in territorial terms and more important as international actors; he means to make the Palestinians sovereign international actors. The Palestinians are divided? Abbas and the world will sell the deal to the Palestinians, and they will want political freedom and peace, and many will come along, Hamas will be divided, and even Gaza will come along.
I used to think that Obama had a 10 percent chance of getting a handshake on the White House lawn; now I think he has a 50 percent chance, said my friend. I don't know what to think of the deal; I am waiting to see what Steve Walt says about it.
The conversation left me uneasy. If the handshake should happen, it would mean that the community I am in, of Palestinian solidarity, will also be divided; some may say that a deal is worth it to end the struggle and others will say that it is not a just peace and should be rejected. Adam Horowitz warned me about this over a year ago; he said, I think Obama is going to get a handshake on the White House lawn, and our community will have to figure out what to say about it.
I think I would be personally torn because my chief impulse here was not the Palestinian solidarity impulse, it was to get this thorn out of the U.S.'s side, in a fair way. I'm reminded of my friend who lectured me last winter on this score. He said, The game has not yet been played by Obama. "Maybe you’re arguing that you can get to one state without a high apocalypse risk and if that’s true, then I could get behind it, but I don’t think it’s true. So you’re in danger of advocating a kind of nihilism." And I'm reminded of British legal scholar John Strawson's argument in his book on Partition, published by Pluto: "Partitioning Palestine remains the only viable way of ending the conflict... All those who insist on recycling the old narratives will delay the decolonizing of Palestine and lay the basis for the next war." And of course Roger Cohen, pushing the plan today, tells the Palestinians to give up their "narrative."
I can't say I agree with these folks. If you're going to impose a solution on one side, why not impose a fair one, on both? But I wanted to put all this out there....
“I possess one of the hallmarks of weak judgment, I believe whatever the last person I talked to has told me”
Same with me. Last person I talked to was a Palestinian exchange student from Ramallah. “I’m not going to stay here in Canada,” he said, “I’m going back for sure. And I will return to my family home.”. – “In Ramallah?” I asked. “No,” he said. “It’s in Israel.”
So sorry for the misuse of blockquote tag above – I tried to put it around the part of Phil’s post I found most intriguing: “The deal will not make a contiguous or viable Palestinian state? Obama is determined to get past that; states in this day and age are less important in territorial terms and more important as international actors; he means to make the Palestinians sovereign international actors. The Palestinians are divided? ”
So what does “less important in territorial terms” mean? Seems to me the essential question buried here concerns political power, and the right litmus test for the legitimacy of any institutionalization of such power is “Does it secure human rights” as defined by international law.
This is a real possibility. The 1993 handshake stripped Palestinians of the momentum of the first intifada. It took two decades for BDS to rejuvenate the movement. I’m not ready to wait another 20 years for this movement to make progress.
Democracy is in the present.
If you are committed to democracy, then you would support a partitioned state.
Frankly, the outcome doesn’t need to be fair, but it does need to be viable. It needs to result in Israeli security for civilians, and Palestinian contiguity sufficient to have an internal economy.
“Your friend’s comments on international recognition are insufficient in an agreement. states in this day and age are less important in territorial terms and more important as international actors; he means to make the Palestinians sovereign international actors.”
Ethnic purity in either Israel or Palestine is NOT a valid criteria for the designation of boundaries. It is reasonable for both states to have a 20% minority or even more. It is not viable though to have a 50/50 split.
That results in civil war, with the end result of partition anyway.
Richard, I think peoples only rush into wars they think they can win. And my sense is that a majority Israels/Palestinians are way past believing their side would “win” a civil war, and that this recognition may even survive moves toward some version of “one state” or “confederation”, especially if the arrangement were not imposed, but agreed to by their respective political leaderships.
What is dangerous right now, I think, is that many Israelis, if not the majority, do feel that the status-quo, which leaves their government in effective physical control of Israel/Palestine, can be maintained indefinitely.
The Likud position absent external pressure does consider that the current setting with incremental slow but persistent annexation is optimal.
The quick expansionist position is regarded by all except fanatics as untenable.
The 67 borders, peace, is regarded by a large minority as optimal as it results in peace affirmed by institutions and a majority (ratified). Resistance now declares that only “the people” decide, and not ratification election (somehow that is not “the people”) with no effect of institutions themselves (that institutions only exist in opposition to “the people”).
The single-state “peace” is regarded by a large majority as a hail-Mary gamble, as exposed to interception as to completed pass, with the highest likelihood of incompletion.
“the 67 borders, peace… Resistance now declares that only ‘the people” decide, and not ratification.”
Would we really have reason to fear right now (with no Agreement details at hand) that, in general, it’s likely a two-state agreement, 67 borders, etc would be rejected by either Israelis or Palestinians in a plebiscite (referendum)?
The people’s can reject any proposal.
To reject a peace though, is to reject a lot (on both sides).
But, it is a fact that the effort for confirmation will be a difficult one, and it is therefore NECESSARY for those that have the power to persuade, to do so to create the conditions by which peace is possible.
Phil’s acknowledgement of his impressionable state, is more helpful to radicals, who achieve their power by disruption, rather than liberals who achieve their power by persuasion applying reason, justice and compassion.
“But, it is a fact that the effort for confirmation will be a difficult one, and it is therefore NECESSARY for those that have the power to persuade, to do so to create the conditions by which peace is possible.”
But you oppose any means of persuasion that are not 100% benign and optional, and given that Israelis are having too good a time to think abotu peace, that makes you complicit.
What’s an ‘internal economy’, Richard?
“What’s an internal economy?”
Intra-regional trade. Economies are built on some intra-regional trade, some inter-regional.
Both.
sounds like some Morgenthau-plan to me.
Huh?
You don’t think that Palestine needs to be as contiguous as possible, so that growers in Hebron can sell in Ramallah, that that is nothing to you?
With peace there will be international trade in Palestine. There are outsourced data processing centers in Amman, and there will be similar in Ramallah if stable.
Smart people in a stable environment attract trade. Ignorant people in a stable environment don’t. Smart people in an unstable environment don’t.
“You don’t think that Palestine needs to be as contiguous as possible, so that growers in Hebron can sell in Ramallah, that that is nothing to you?”‘
You’re such a sleazy windbag Witty.
How about this? Why do you support the greatest cause fo anti Semitism in the world? If Israel didn’t exist, then the incidence of anti Smeitism would fall dramatically, so cleaerly that makes you an anti Semite.
There will be no peace because as Time magazine’cover said, Israel is not interested or care for peace. And you want to maintain that position by protecting Israelis from any ecponomic hardship ie. oposing BDS, so that Israel wil continue to not want peace.
Do you see how destructive your ideology is?
“If you are committed to democracy, then you would support a partitioned state.”‘
Shut up Witty.
If you are committed to democracy, you would have the elected and legitmate leader of the Palestinians represent the Palestinain interests, not some sock puppet who’s temr ran out 2 yearas ago.
Dear Mr Weiss, you are neither right nor wrong. Ummm, this is a deal. With all deals, the devil is in the details. Is that mustang coupe original, rust free and lovingly looked after, and thus good for another 100k with continuing care, or stolen, or a mashup that will roll at the first corner and then die long before you can pay off the loan. Is the two state solution fair, does it genuinely free the Palestinians from oppression and theft and repeated military attack by Israel? Or is just another minor dictatorship, with continuing Israeli oppression, unable to establish any economic base except for sending servants to work in other countries.
“The deal will not make a contiguous or viable Palestinian state? Obama is determined to get past that; states in this day and age are less important in territorial terms and more important as international actors”
I, not respectfully, disagree. The current situation in Isratine carefully prevents any significant economic development. What appears to be on offer is a nonstate, with no water, no control of its borders, customs control, airspace, radio frequencies, or defense, no free movement inside the state and no free movement outside the state. We all know that the Istratine apartheid settlements have been carefully placed to control nearly all the water; and thus the occupied westbank does not have sufficient even for its current subsistence level existence. Isratine has already offered to build a water refinery, and then sell water on a fixed contract to the Palestinians. Extreme chutzpah, yes. Business has the same problems. Everything I read from businessmen who have been successful elsewhere and indeed from the Economist says that they cannot work with current limitations — none of which would go away. The political arrangements all suggest that yet another unpleasant dictatorship is on the cards. I am not implying that the current ‘leadership’ is not trying to get an acceptable deal. I believe that they are trying very hard. However, they no longer represent their proto-grouping. Given the record what are the odds that what they negotiate will be accepted or that the current nondemocratic oligocracy will allow democracy to suddenly arise?
Even with subsidy from the US and Europe, it is now completely impossible that a viable democratic city state of Palestine can arise within Istratine.
This is very bad. If Istratine cannot agree to a viable, reasonable partition, and a non racist-apartheid state will not be allowed to succeed it, then what will happen? My personal belief is that we can usually trust people to do what they are currently doing.
What we see today is as near as damnit the Allon plan link to en.wikipedia.org
Mr Bibi has made many statements that indicate that this is his only acceptable solution. This is a ‘two state solution’ that will give us another 60 years of occupation, until finally something gives istratine an excuse to kill or expel every remaining nonjew into Jordan.
On ethics, I do not favor allowing Israel to hold one square inch of occupied territories, because that would reward the illegalities of 43 years. read UNSC 465 (1980) (dismantle the settlements, repatriate the settlers). This should be the rule and should be enforced.
OK, done with “should”. What about the “offer”?
If Bibi and Barry offer the Palestine quislings a deal, let the quislings put that deal before the Palestinian people, in Palestine and Israel and Lebanon and Jordan and Syria and USA and see if it “flies”. I don’t think all those people waited, with their admirable sumud, for 43 years (or 62 years) in order to take a deal without contiguity, without water, without the normal attributes of a state. Indeed, that is what the return (and it IS a return) to consideration of ONE state is all about. Maybe they are waiting until they are a majority (in the voting age group) and will then ask that apartheid be replaced by democracy or that the land be re-divided.
Barry may be desperate, Abbas may himself be desperate, but the Palestinians will (I believe) take a long view. If Barry is desperate for a “yes” from the Palestinians, let him offer them soe reason to say “yes”, and $3B doesn’t begin to cut it.
I agree that the objective can only be a row of Palestinian mini-states which can be cleared out one by one, maybe over quite a long time and mainly by paying people to take advantage of generous immigration offers from the West. The clearances won’t have to be complete, just enough to leave no more than a museum piece remnant. The essential thing is that non-Jewish residents cannot be regarded as there by permanent right, only by grace, since that is the core belief of Zionism.
The handshake on the lawn would probably transform Obama’s chances of being reelected very positively, and that is enough to make it quite likely.
Of itself it’s not enough, though. I’ve said once or twice that a Palestinian referendum is quite likely – Netanyahu has only to say the word and his quislings will obey. It could very easily be rigged but the real question is whether the Palestinians have had the stuffing knocked out of them so thoroughly that they will vote Yes even if the thing is honestly conducted. I might have had the moral stuffing knocked completely out of me, I must admit, had I suffered what they have.
Mind you, the closest parallel is the Cyprus referendum of a few years ago, which didn’t, rightly or wrongly, go the way intended.
I understand Phil’s fears – and these are the hopes of the other side – that the Palestinian solidarity movement, inside of Palestine and outside it, will be seriously divided. I think that this is all too likely. Serious divisions are part of the lot of the oppressed and of those who try to stand by them. But reason prevails in the end, it has to.
The Haitian as well as the Cypriot experience offer clues as to how the Palestinians might vote, were a plebiscite put to them that didn’t offer a viable, independent state. Haiti, the only slave nation to have fought and won a war of independence, short-lived though it was, consequent to interterence from the U.S and European nations. Despite this Haitians have never given up on their struggle for independence. Their continued resistance to re-enslavement (colonization being a form of enslavement) has been tested several times in recent years; specifically the elections in which Jean-Paul Aristide ran and won by huge majorities (85-90 percent, twice) against various puppets put up by Uncle Sam and his Haitian Uncle Toms. Haitian resistance derives from its African heritage. Palestinian resistance has African overtones in that when the struggle becomes most intense, there’s unity among the masses with leadership so widely distributed that its difficult for the oppressor to defeat it by “cutting off its head.” So if I’m correct in this, the U.S.backed IDF won’t be able to defeat the Palestinian resistance, short of genocide, such as the slow motion variety that its now carryong out in Gaza (or worse). Whether the world will allow this remains to be seen, but for sure a phony plebescite would be defeated overwhelmingly.
oops, make that Jean-Bertrand Aristide
Pabelmont’s remarks crossed with mine. There’s a fair chance he’s right and that my imaginings are too pessimistic.
PHIL- “I think I would be personally torn because my chief impulse here was not the Palestinian solidarity impulse, it was to get this thorn out of the U.S.’s side….”
Thorn out of the U.S.’s side? How about thorn out of your liberal Jewish self-image? To oppose the one area of imperial injustice which you feel reflects poorly upon you and other Jews, yet do it in such a way as to not disturb the underlying system of power? Am I being unfair? Perhaps.
One thing I can guarantee. If there is a handshake, lots of people on the left and right will be vociferous against it.
Hopefully, everybody will shut them out this time instead of allowing them to dictate the terms of debate.
The left or right won’t have a thing to do with the outcome. Palestinians will decide for themselves. And except for a few Uncle Toms the decision will be near-unanimous.
Stated in the name of the Palestinians. (Not exactly them determining for themselves.)
“If there is a handshake, lots of people on the left and right will be vociferous against it.”
Yes, let’s not allow the fomralization of the enslavemnent of the Palestinians be disrupted by nay sayers.
RE: “Obama seems determined to get a handshake on the White House lawn between Abbas and Netanyahu.” – friend of Weiss
MY RETORT: I’m just concerned about what kind of a “handshake” it will really be.
The PA refused to grant Abbas the authority to negotiate on their behalf during the last talks and they certainly won’t grant it under these terms.
Netenyahu is going to want even more. As far as he’s concenred, the latest bribe he’s been offered will only pays for 90 days of Israelis compliance, and so the deal demands leading to the handshake on the lawn will require a brand new set of goodies.
Obama has miscalculated yet again. Once more, he’ s going to come out of this empty handed and he deserves every failure and humiliation comming to his way.
It’s just not going to happen. I read a very astute comment on Walt’s blog:
“He (Bibbi) is now demanding that the package be detailed in a letter before he will say yes or no.
Shas is insisting that they will abstain from a vote ONLY if the Americans agree in writing that once the 90 days are up the Israelis are free to build whereever they like.
Obama, naturally, can not possibly put that in a letter, because that would give an OFFICIAL American seal of approval to a blatant violation of international law.
Bibi is planning to reject this package, and so he is positioning himself to lay the blame on someone else e.g. Obama for refusing to supply a letter, or Shas for rejecting the letter that is supplied, or by the simple expedient of looking at the letter and thundering “THIS isn’t what Hillary offered me!!!!!!”"