Please tell me, where is Israel headed?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Thu, 03/26/2009 - 4:06pm


By John J. Mearsheimer

Benjamin Netanyahu is in the final stages of putting together Israel's next government, which will be opposed to a two-state solution. Most importantly, the new prime minister and his Likud Party are firmly against a Palestinian state. The Labor Party, which will be part of the governing coalition and which has been identified with the two-state solution for the past two decades, did not insist that Likud support that policy as a condition for joining the government. Its leader, Ehud Barak, merely asked for and got a vague statement saying that Israel was committed to promoting regional peace. Avigdor Lieberman, who heads Yisrael Beiteinu, the other major party in the ruling coalition, is not likely to push to give the Palestinians a viable state of their own. His main concern is "transferring" the Palestinians out of Israel so that it can be an almost purely Jewish state.

So Israel will continue expanding its settlements in the West Bank. In fact, the Israeli press is reporting that Netanyahu and Lieberman agreed in their negotiations to form a government that Israel would build 3,000 housing units in an area between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim (a huge settlement bloc) known as E-1. Once that is accomplished, Israel will have effectively cut the West Bank in half, making it almost impossible to create a viable Palestinian state. This deal was supposed to be secret, because the United States is opposed to Israel building in the E-1 area.

The Palestinians, of course, will remain locked up in Gaza and a handful of enclaves on the West Bank. In essence, Netanyahu and his two key ministers -- Ehud Barak (Defense) and Avigdor Lieberman (Foreign Affairs) -- are committed to creating a Greater Israel, which will cover all of the territory that was once Mandate Palestine.

The Obama administration will surely try to push Netanyahu to change his thinking about a two-state solution and work to give the Palestinians a real state of their own. The Israel lobby, however, will adamantly defend Israel's right to do whatever it wants in the Occupied Territories and make it impossible for the president to put significant pressure on Israel. Netanyahu, like all Israeli leaders, understands this basic fact of life. He knows that he will just have to say a few nice words about the "peace process" and blame the whole thing on the Palestinians, who he believes are a bunch of terrorists anyway, and he will be pretty much free to do whatever he wants in Gaza and the West Bank.

It seems clear to me and to many smart people I know that this story does not have a happy ending. Indeed, it looks like a disastrous ending. Greater Israel cannot be a democratic state, because there will soon be -- if there aren't already -- more Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea than there are Israeli Jews. So, if you give each person one vote, Israel becomes Palestine. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, which leaves two possible outcomes: apartheid and expelling the Palestinians -- and there are more than 5 million of them -- from Greater Israel. Talk about repulsive options. It is worth remembering that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that if there is no two-state solution, Israel will end up in a South Africa-like situation and that will mean the end of the Jewish state. In effect, he is saying that Israel is turning itself into an apartheid state.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/26/please_tell_me_where_is_israel_headed

[Bragi]

1. Actually, there is another possibility

The writer states that the demographic/democratic dilemma "leaves two possible outcomes: apartheid and expelling the Palestinians."

Actually, there is another possible outcome that absolutely no-one wants to talk about:

After more than a half-century of failing to reach a settlement with its 100 million hostile neighbours, and with its major military backer facing bankruptcy, it becomes apparent to everyone that Israel is not, and has no hope of becoming, a prosperous peaceful nation, and a massive humanitarian effort has to be mounted to resettle its citizens abroad.

- B

[PFunk]

2. Actually I see the "one state" solution eventually being adopted ...

... for pretty much the same reasons mentioned above.

[Sezu]

4. Well you're in good company. Hamas wants a single state with

no Jews as do Hezbollah and may other Arabs and/or Muslims and some extremist Jews want a single state with no Arabs. Welcome to their club.

[rateyes]

6. I wonder if any of those extremist Jews who want a single state with

no Arabs have any kind of positions of power in the Israeli government?? :shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

9. Not very likely.

If there were a 'massive humanitarian effort to ...resettle (citizens) abroad', there are quite a number of countries that would come well ahead of Israel in terms of need.

If a one-state solution was attempted now, that might indeed be the upshot (quite possibly for both Jews *and* Arabs) - which is one main reason why few seriously want to attempt it.

[Sezu]

3. The author forgets the most easily observed fact in the

world that once guys actually get into power what they said before and what they actually do is often at odds once they face the reality of governing. Even Obama has done that hasn't he? The author and others need to stop being chicken littles.

[leftchick]

5. " turning itself into an apartheid state. " I disagree

looking at the Gaza devastation, they have been an apartheid state for quite some time now.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. I think apartheid is more applicable to the WB oppression, than the full-out siege situation in Gaza

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

11. only if you're a propagndist or ignorant.

The blockade of Gaza is collective punishment and a human rights abuse. The attack on Gaza was disproportionate and war crimes may well have been perpetrated. What it is not, is genocide.

[Kurska]

14. I really want to know what would be "Proportionate"

What should israel have done? Make some Qasams and fire them back at the gaza strip?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. Wow. Your post assumes that there is no reasonable way to end this conflict.

We all know how to stop the rockets.

End the occupation.
End the siege.
IMPLEMENT the TWO-STATE SOLUTION.

Is it that far off the table?

[sabbat hunter]

19. lets say

that the two state solution is implemented (which I hope happens) and there are still rockets fired in to Israel from either the west bank or Gaza. Would Israel be justified in taking whatever means necessary to stop them?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Depends.

If a Palestinian unity gov't agreed to a solution (ie, i am not talking about the quisling PA, which barely has anyone's suport), and then rockets were fired, I would think that the Palestinian gov't would have the responsibility to deal with it.

There may always be disruptors in the region. I would hope neither side would grant the power to truly disrupt the peace.

[sabbat hunter]

30. So Israel

would not have a right to defend itself against such attacks?

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. If Israeli settlers continue to try to expropriate land or the Israeli state

tries to interfere with the free movement of people and goods within a Palestinian state or interfere with Palestinian control over their airspace and borders - or if Israeli forces kidnap or attack or even kill Palestinian political leaders - would the Palestinians have a right to retaliate and defend themselves?

I think the point is that there will almost certainly be some disruptors in the highly unlikely event that the two-state solution were to ever be implemented - But disruptions by people on either side should not be allowed to slide into an escalated and full scale conflict.

[sabbat hunter]

37. so after

a two state agreement is put in to place, Palestine allowed to control its borders (and Israel is allowed to control its own borders in anyway it sees fit), etc and rocket attacks continue, Israel would not have a right to defend itself?

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. both the Israeli state and a Palestinian state would have a right to defend themselves

and both should exercise some common sense and common humanity in how they go about doing it.

There are suggestion that a mutually agreeable force could be present and on the ground to handle these kinds of issues.

But given that settlement expansion and settlement infrastructure expansion is rapidly putting an end to the two-state solution with no conceivable Israeli coalition willing to reverse this - these kind of questions are rapidly becoming moot points.

Soon there will be an Arab majority between the Jordan and the Sea - and a viable two independent state solution will be a physical, economic and political implausibility.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. I am saying that a serious peace arrangement would have to lay that out.

If one rocket flew over the board, would Israel have the right to again level Gaza and massacre civilians?

Is that what you're asking?

[sabbat hunter]

36. you didn't quite answer the question

if the two state solution is implemented (with both sides agreeing, settlements removed etc), and multiple rocket attacks continued, would Israel have a right to respond?

[bemildred]

38. Yes, she did.

She said that how that situation - cross border violence - would be handled would have to be spelled out in any agreement settling the issue. Any "agreement" that did not spell that out, did not have procedures and enforcement mechanisms for that, would be worthless. Because we all know it is not just going to stop like turning off a switch at this point.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

41. Thanks Bemildred.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

34. The best chance to prevent that scenario is for the Israeli government

to STOP trying to delay the creation of a Palestinian state and to stop trying to make sure that the West Bank portion of that state is as small as possible.

This means ending the West Bank settlement project FOREVER, apologizing to Palestinians for ever starting it(the Israeli government knew that it was against international law to build settlements on occupied lands), to apologize for the checkpoints and the daily humiliations Palestinians face(remember, 99% of Palestinians have never actually harmed anyone)
and to admit it was wrong to use the phrase "a land without people for a people without land", a phrase that falsely implies that hardly anyone lived in Palestine and that a mass takeover of Palestinian lands was thus no big deal.

It also means negotiating a REAL compensation package and offering real apologies for those who won't get to return to the homes in Israel proper that they were unjustly driven out of.

You can't absolutely guarantee that a Palestinian state will end the fighting, but you CAN absolutely guarantee that continued Israeli obstruction of the creation of a real Palestinian state will keep the fighting going unto everyone's tenth generation.

Nothing Israel is doing now to Gaza is actually succeeding in the goal of PROTECTING Israelis. And insisting on "winning" is just going to make everything worse, since the whole Palestinian narrative has been about avenging repeated humiliations. You don't want the vengeance, you don't humiliate. What's so hard to understand about that?

[azurnoir]

20. Now theres an idea n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. yea... remember that old concept, from like, back in the 80s? End the occupation?

[azurnoir]

24. Well yeah ending the occupation

would be be infinitely better than continued conflict unfortunately and to be honest I don't know if that will happen anytime soon, no one can make Israel end the occupation not at least while the those that legislate for the one country that possibly could put sufficient pressure on Israel to end the occupation are far more interested in maintaining their own careers than doing what is right.

BTW my comment was snark ya know, could you for a moment envision IDF putting their F-16's, tanks, drones ect in mothballs and using Kassams?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. LOL I misread your comment to mean 'there's an idea' to ending the occupation!

Guess I should wear my reading glasses -- i have trouble following the 'response' lines!

[Jefferson23]

33. Do you think Israel should have used WP?

[LeftishBrit]

10. A two-state solution is the only acceptable one

Or you do indeed end up with either (a) a 'stable' but oppressive apartheid state; (b) the expulsion of the Palestinians; (c) the expulsion of the Jews; or (d) long-term civil war.

None of these outcomes is remotely desirable. I would say that (d) is the most likely long-term outcome if a two-state solution is not achieved.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. Civil war? That presumes a symmetry that does not exist, don't you think? nt

[Kurska]

13. Civil wars can be one sided n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Civil war: "a war between opposing groups of citizens in the same country."

The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel.
Palestinians are not citizens.

This is not a civil war by any definition. This is a conflict between a nuclear armed illegal occupier and an occupied civilian population.

There may be a civil war in israel between the settlers and the gov't... but that's another story.

Leftist Brit: the notion of parity that underlies your statement does not exist.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Perhaps 'internal war' is a more strictly appropriate term than 'civil war'

The Palestinians aren't citizens - but they're under Israeli jurisdiction. The OTs aren't part of Israel, but are under Israel's jurisdiction.

I suppose that's one of my biggest criticisms of Israel: that they are treating Palestine *both* as their territory *and* as an enemy state. If Gaza is part of Israel, then don't bomb it. If it's to be regarded as a separate state, on which war can be declared, then give it its independence. (I'm obviously not in favour of wars between separate states; but having it both ways seems worse.)

'This is a conflict between a nuclear armed illegal occupier and an occupied civilian population.'

The nukes are not relevant here, as Israel cannot nuke the OTs without dangerous fallout to its own people. I agree that Israel is better armed. And that the conflict is between occupier and occupied. Not all are civilians, however: there are clearly active combatants in Palestine, even if they don't have an official army.


'There may be a civil war in israel between the settlers and the gov't... but that's another story.'

I hadn't thought of this here, but it's possible. I doubt that there would be full-scale civil war at that level, but certainly Israel may reap the whirlwind there in the form of a domestic-terrorism problem.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. Perhaps "conflict over illegal military occupation" is more strictly appropriate.

While it may "feel" internal on the Israeli side, there is nothing internal about it for Palestinians. Israel is an illegal foreign occupying force.

[LeftishBrit]

17. True symmetry need not exist for a civil war

Only symmetry at the level that neither party is able to expel/exterminate the other - either because of lack of military facilities, or likely international response.

If there is a long-term continuation of the status quo, and no end is seen in sight, and both sides are unable or unwilling to come to an agreement, and neither can destroy the other - well, what can you expect other than long-term civil war? Which would quite possibly be aggravated by the wrong kind of 'support' from the Americans on one side (especially if they again get a Republican government) and Iran/certain Arab states on the other.

I don't expect this outcome immediately or in the short term, but in the medium-to-long term, if both sides lose hope or expectation of peace, it's fairly likely. More likely than either a peaceful one-state solution (under the cirumstances described), or an apocalypse whereby either side destroys the other.

One of many reasons - besides that of simple justice - why I strongly support a two-state solution.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. unfortunately d. is almost certainly what is actually going to happen

Although given that the Palestinians do not have a military option, a long term civil conflict against an isolated pariah minority-ruled and utterly de-legitimized state would be the more discriptive.

I can simply see no hope at this time of a political configuration within Israel that will allow the removal of enough settlements and their infrastructure to allow for an economically and politically viable independent Palestinian state with unimpeded movement and unimpeded access to a capital in East Jerusalem.

My mind cannot at this time imagine a scenario in which such a political configuration can emerge until well after the massive array of settlements and their infrastructure has become so permanently woven into the Israeli state that their removal is completely implausible.

By default this will obviously mean a single apartheid state with a Jewish-Israeli minority hopelessly attempting to subjugate a solid Palestinian-Arab majority who will never in a thousand years accept such a situation - as inevitable as it appears to be.

Any attempt to change the demographics by massive ethnic cleansing will provoke such a regional and international reaction that I suspect it would detour Israel from seriously considering it, given that the alternative would be to make themselves a total international pariah beyond anything they have ever experienced.

Let me make it clear I would certainly support the two-state solution and have for years. Most Palestinians would certainly support the two-state solution and have for years. Most of the Arab world would certainly support the two-state solution and have for years. I simply see no hope for it and I can see that even the international community is recognizing that it is rapidly becoming completely implausible.

Ali Albunimah points to the Belgium bi-national model as one possible example where the state is configured to that the French-speaking Belgium's and the Flemish(Dutch)- speaking Belgium's have an arrangement so that demographics do not determine which ethnic group holds the balance of power. The government divides the cabinet positions and attempts to equally share the power while insuring cultural, educational and language rights are assigned to the respective communities. Some have suggested the Swiss model where a series of mini-republics administer government under the umbrella of a central state.

We must remember that all these European examples only came about after centuries of civil war and civil conflict and much bloodshed.

Which kind of binational state?
By Meron Benvenisti - former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem


And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose ".

link to full article:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fdu


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=5&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref=&oref=login

[applegrove]

25. It is just heartbreaking.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. I think what we'll see is a one-and-a-half state non-solution

Israel won't allow the construction of a viable Palestinian state - it would mean giving up territory it's determined to hang on to, and it would present too big a threat.

But it also can't allow the Palestinians to become part of Israel, because then they'd get votes.

So we'll see a continuation of what we currently have - an ever-expanding Israeli state, and a Palestinian non-state with some limited self-governance but under Israel's thumb.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. I agree. A few rockets flying into Sderot is hardly worth changing the status quo. nt

[Ken Burch]

35. In other words, Menachem Begin's arrogant "autonomy" proposal, imposed by force.

Great.

Welcome back to Saigon, everybody.

[GoesTo11]

43. perhaps there will be alliances between WB and Jordan, Gaza and Egypt.

That would provide a much better chance at not being a failed state, and at having some ability to improve quality of life, while still living completely in an Arab state.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. I doubt it

The Palestinians don't want to be Jordanians or Egyptians, they want to be Palestinians, and Jordan and Egypt don't want them.

[shira]

40. This article is crap

Israel can offer Palestinians their own state 100 more times, each offer being somewhat better than the Clinton initiatives at Taba 2001. It's not Israel's fault Palestinian leadership keeps rejecting each deal because they decide war is better than not getting everything they want in a perfect deal that puts Israel's security at certain risk.

Another option Mearsheimer doesn't consider is full Israeli withdrawal from the W.Bank and an immediate Israeli declaration of Palestinian sovereignty. This would mark the end to settlements and occupation in both Gaza and the W.Bank. It's dangerous for Israel if Palestinian leadership decides to attack in response, but more lethal for Palestinians once Israel responds back with their own show of force. At least the occupation and settlements couldn't be used anymore as an excuse. Neither could refugees, since they could go to the new Palestine if they wished.

Of course, upon concluding a peace deal in which the W.Bank is deserted by Israel - Palestine could still attack Israel and severe repurcussions would follow. Would Israel still be demonized by Mearsheimer and Associates for acting responsibly in self-defense? Of course! This circus would still go on, who are we kidding here?

[shaayecanaan]

45. You parted ways with reality a long time ago...

Israel can offer Palestinians their own state 100 more times, each offer being somewhat better than the Clinton initiatives at Taba 2001.

The Israelis have never offered the Palestinians a better deal than Taba 2001. In fact, most of the recent Israeli proposals have not even been as good as Barak's original deal at Camp David 2000.

By contrast, the recent Palestinian peace offers have closely mirrored the "balloons and strings" proposal that was part of the Clinton bridging proposal at Taba.

As has been pointed out to you and many of the other people on this board who post from a right-wing perspective, the main reason why Taba ran out of steam was because of the upcoming Israeli elections. The public mood in Israel at that time was quite far to the right and because of that even Barak was pressured into repudiating the proposals that were agreed at Taba:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#Barak.27s_negation_of_the_talks

Again, one of the unfortunate aspects of this message board format is that discussions get buried and in a few weeks or so you'll probably come out with the same false assertions.

The EU report on the Taba talks, which both sides agree is fairly accurate, can be found here:-

http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm

[shira]

46. sorry, the reality is Arafat rejected Taba - so says Clinton, ben Ami, and Ross

And Taba wasn't a launching pad for more concessions by Israel. It was sold by Clinton as the 'ceiling', meaning as far as Israel could go. With some tweaks here and there, Arafat could take it or leave it. He rejected everything in it. And I wasn't aware that Clinton, Barak, and ben Ami were rightwingers with a rightwing perspective. You'll have to explain that one to me sometime.

[shaayecanaan]

49. He didnt reject it...

At no stage did the Palestinians reject "everything in it". Their position was very much that with some movement here and there, it was acceptable to them.

Arafat said as much when he publicly said in 2002 that he accepted each of the basic tenets of the Taba proposal. However, Israel said that the Taba proposal was no longer on the table.

The Taba talks started on January 20, 2001 and ended on January 27, 2001. At the end of the talks the two sides made a joint statement saying:-

The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election.

Saeb Erakat, the Palestinian negotiator, was of the opinion that only six weeks were needed to settle a final agreement. This was not so much because there were outstanding disputes, but because the Taba proposal was reasonably complicated and there remained much to be ironed out, as compared with the Egypt-Israel agreement, which was basically a full withdrawal and therefore was less complicated.

Ariel Sharon was elected on 6 February 2001. He immediately made it known he would not continue the Taba talks nor would he meet with Arafat in person.

On 8 February 2001, barely a week after the talks concluded, Barak issued a statement saying that the Taba proposals were not binding on the state of Israel (Barak was still PM until Sharon took power in March):-

Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel. In a letter to President George Bush, Prime Minister Barak stated that his government had done the utmost to bring about an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that these efforts did not bear fruit, primarily because of a lack of sufficient readiness for compromise on the part of the Palestinian leadership...Before sending the letter, Barak spoke with former President Clinton, and they were in agreement that the ideas raised in the past months are not binding on the new government in Israel. Prime Minister Barak intends to convey this position also to the heads of the European Union and to Chairman Arafat.

At the end of the day, it was Sharon that scuttled Taba by refusing to continue negotiations. The two sides had simply run out of time. Even if the Palestinian side had agreed to everything on the first morning of Taba, it is very doubtful that the agreement could have ratified by the Knesset in time before the elections were held. Sharon made it very clear that he would not abide by Taba in the event that he were elected.

As I said earlier, your modus operandi is simply to post bare assertions of facts that are untrue. Sometimes, a poster such as myself or someone like Douglas Carpenter takes the time to counter your streams of drivel with a post that sets out the relevant facts. However, that takes a certain amount of dedication and I have no doubt that in a couple of weeks' time you will simply be spouting the same nonsense on a new post.

I don't know how that might be rectified - some boards have a facility that allows poor-quality responses to be downgraded based on viewers' response - the Guardian CiF does this but it is prone to abuse. Perhaps posts on oft-disputed topics such as Taba might be made into stickies on a forum such as this so that they just dont get buried under the new layers of rubbish.

[Alamuti Lotus]

42. On the same course it has been on: towards the dustbin of history

[cali]

47. lol. every nation is headed toward the dustbin of history

or something like that. Israel is a reality. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. And wishful thinking won't make it happen.

[Alamuti Lotus]

48. eh, some quicker than others

its position, and by virtue of its consistant policy of actions, creates an untenable situation with one inevitable (slightly delayable) outcome. Wishful thinking will not stop that.