Tony Judt has an important piece on today's Times Op-Ed page with bad news: the settlements are not going anywhere, they represent 10 percent of the Jewish population, and the belief that they are going away is "fictions on the ground" that delude us all about an eventual two-state solution. Key excerpts:
The Israeli authorities, whether left,
right or center, have no intention of removing [the settlements], and neither
Palestinians nor informed Americans harbor illusions on this score.
To be sure, it suits almost everyone to pretend otherwise — to point to
the 2003 “road map” and speak of a final accord based on the 1967
frontiers. But such feigned obliviousness is the small change of
political hypocrisy, the lubricant of diplomatic exchange that
facilitates communication and compromise.
There are occasions,
however, when political hypocrisy is its own nemesis, and this is one
of them. Because the settlements will never go, and yet almost everyone
likes to pretend otherwise, we have resolutely ignored the implications
of what Israelis have long been proud to call “the facts on the
ground.”..
[Last week] the
prime minister restated the unvarnished truth: His government has no
intention of recognizing international law or opinion with respect to
Israel’s land-grab in “Judea and Samaria.”…
[I]f I am right,
and there is no realistic prospect of removing Israel’s settlements,
then for the American government to agree that the mere nonexpansion of
“authorized” settlements is a genuine step toward peace would be the
worst possible outcome of the present diplomatic dance. No one else in
the world believes this fairy tale; why should we? Israel’s political
elite would breathe an unmerited sigh of relief, having once again
pulled the wool over the eyes of its paymaster. The United States would
be humiliated in the eyes of its friends, not to speak of its foes. If
America cannot stand up for its own interests in the region, at least
let it not be played yet again for a patsy.
Two responses:
Adam Horowitz: The Judt piece seems to reflect an interesting mini-trend to the
recent reporting on US policy on Israel/Palestine – Israeli
intransigence might harm Obama's international credibility. This was
also echoed this weekend in the LA Times "Tussle with Israel puts Obama credibility on the line, observers say."
It is
widely expected in Israel and the Arab world that the administration
will give ground and support at least some growth in the 120
[settlement] communities.
Opponents of such a move say the concessions
will not only disappoint the Arabs whom the president has courted, but
also will be read by adversaries around the globe as a signal that the
president can be forced to back down.
Along with debunking the natural growth argument (which Americans for Peace Now has been
doing a great job at doing), this could be another interesting line of
argument to reframe the issue in US interests and prod the
administration into action.
Weiss: Grim, wonderful piece, it suggests that the sooner American intellectuals wrap
their heads around a one-state future (the moral-realist vision Judt offered in 2003), the better. Judt seeks to blow away a ton of hypocrisy surrounding the goodness and likelihood of the two-state-solution, in
which innocent friends of mine are recruited. Though
yes, I also am engaged by the two-state talk, and think, Maybe Palestinians
should accept a state on any terms now, so that a new struggle can begin, in Israel and Palestine, without all the "existential" blackmail.
