- Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own -
Time is running out for Israel and the Palestinians. Barack Obama is probably the last American president to have the option of pursuing an accord leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, the so-called two-state solution.
If that fails, another generation will be locked into bloodshed and strife. That is the bleak scenario painted by two senior American Middle East experts in a new book, Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. It is the product of an 18-month joint study by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations, two pillars of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
The authors of the chapter on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Steven A. Cook and Shibley Telhami, see American involvement in peace diplomacy as indispensable and say last month’s presidential elections opened new opportunities. But they note that after years of unsuccessful negotiations, there is a
growing sense of disbelief in the possibility of a peaceful agreement.
“More troubling, an increasing number of Palestinian and Arab intellectuals are abandoning the idea of a two-state solution and are now advocating a one-state solution in which Jews and Arabs coexist in a binational state. In Israel some mainstream voices are now arguing that the two-state solution is
unachievable…”
“Left on its current trajectory, the Arab-Israeli conflict is on the verge of moving into a potentially disastrous phase in which Israelis and Arabs broadly come to believe that the two-state solution is no longer viable,” the authors say.
Possible consequences of that belief include a third Palestinian intifada (uprising), a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence and the collapse of the Palestinian authority.
Hamas, the Islamist movement which controls Gaza and is growing in influence on the occupied West Bank, run by the rival Fatah, would be strengthened.
To prevent the dire consequences they foresee, the authors say the new U.S. administration must give high priority to peace diplomacy and change policies on key aspects. Pressing Israel to freeze building settlements in the West Bank is high on their list. So is getting Hamas into the negotiating fold as part of a unity government. (So far, the U.S. and the European Union brand Hamas a terrorist group that cannot be a negotiating partner).
So can Obama do what is necessary to end the impasse? Is the only alternative to a two-state solution renewed, large-scale bloodshed?
NO SIGNS OF FRESH THINKING FROM OBAMA
While Obama has been critical of the hands-off approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the first seven years of the Bush administration, dismissing its efforts as “trips consisting of little more than photo-ops”, the president-elect has shown no sign that he might be willing to break with the decades-old policies that have earned the U.S. a reputation in the Arab world of backing Israel no matter what.
Would Obama, for example, use the threat of withholding U.S. financial aid to get Israel to stop building new settlements in the West Bank - where there already are 240,000 Israeli settlers - or dismantle existing ones? Not likely. Would he throw his weight behind calls for an end to Israel’s economic blockade of Gaza?
Would he, as the Brookings/Council on Foreign Relations report suggests, “recognize that Hamas’s power stems from genuine support among a significant segment of the Palestinian public..?” There’s nothing in his public statements that indicates he would and there are no pointers that he intends to depart from long-standing U.S. policies on the conflict.
That includes the two-state idea. What’s remarkable in the Brookings/CFR analysis is the concern it expresses that in the absence of a peace settlement, secular elites will turn their back on the notion of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and instead opt for one country (Israel, the West Bank and Gaza) in which Arabs and Jews are equal. For decades, the one-state idea was the preserve of a handful of far-left Israelis and Palestinian activists. The fact that it is now bubbling up into the mainstream shows that is gaining currency.
One of the most vocal proponents of the idea is Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American activist and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. “All the talk of a two-state solution, all the diplomatic initiatives are divorced from the reality of what Israel is doing on the ground,” he says. “A Palestinian state requires the removal of settlements and that’s not likely to happen.”
Most Israelis reject the notion of one state for all, chiefly for reasons of demographics. Because of higher Palestinian birth rates, Israeli Jews will become a minority within the next two years if present trends continue. By December 2007, Israeli Jews made up just under 48% of the population in the area that would make up one state, Palestinians 46%.
Abunimah, a co-founder the The Electronic Intifada, a website critical of U.S. and Israeli policies, has something in common with the more moderate experts from Brookings and the Council on Foreign Relations. “Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict requires a sledgehammer,” he says, “Not a scalpel.”
Echoing that sense of urgency, the Brookings report says: “The time for incremental agreements has passed.”
You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com.
For previous columns by Bernd Debusmann, click here.
I think it's time for the Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences without 3rd party assistance. The fact is, peace can never be imposed on this region; the answers to middle east harmony lie within the determination of the Jews and Arabs to find a way for it to flourish . Western influence and interference will get them nowhere.
Trackback
81 comments so far
Previous | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
Please get some reading done and try to figure out if the muslims killed any jews between 1260-1917. You might come out with a logic answer after learning about world’s history as a whole instead of believing occidental, jewish, muslim, russian or whatever form of propaganda…
Hatred exists because of fear and a lack of understanding between people. Israeli and Palestinian people themselves must understand the basis for their own hatred and fear and resolve it through improved communication. Fear is not a political problem, it is a HUMAN PROBLEM. It has existed for millennium. It continues to thrive because people fail to recognize its origins and think treaties or borders will somehow fix the underlying problem. They won’t. Did Bush respect treaties or international borders the moment he was gripped by fear of the potential for a terrorist attack?
Fear poisons understanding in the world. It makes miscommunication and human mistakes appear more threatening and ominous than they are meant to be. It breeds distrust and hate. People who encourage fear are either ignorant of its power or embrace it for the power it provides them over others. Fear is the enemy in the Middle East and it is one thing no one is making an effort to control through improved communication. Fear is the default emotion that prevents people from understanding or embracing the truth and recognizing what is real and has value.
With all due respect to President-Elect Obama, asking if Obama can solve the Arab-Israeli problem is like asking if you think a 4-year old can fly a 747 from LAX to Dubai
Unfortunately most Arabs seem to have the mentality of civilization 500 years ago with modern day technology.( Not saying there are many many civilized eduacated Arabs). I don’t see any hope of fixing this problem in much less that 500 more years. They have been fighting among themselves for 100’s of years. Look at Iraq, Hussain controled them with an iron fist. Democracy seems to be too progressive for most Arabs. They need a strong man (tribal leader) to govern them. Western civialization gave that up at least a few hundred years ago.
Al Paul…My thoughts exactly! Well said!
You all talk rubbish and so does everyone else. Nobody can end this problem without a long reaching, and I mean 30 year effort to teach the real history, i.e. we’ve been screwing each other over since time begat time begat time, and it will not end until the world realises. We are beyond borders, we are beyond land and sea. We have but one world to live in, right or wrong we have to share. Grow up, grow a pair, and stop killing everyone..
Dear Anonymous
Are you saying that Israel would even contemplate using its Nukes against Nato, against anybody else? I don’t think so.
The IDF is Mighty, The Mightiest in the Region, No Question about it, but it is Still Over Rated by both Israel and the World Press. The modest capabilities of Hizbullah, an irregular army, attest to that.
If Israel truly wants Peace then Nato is more than capable to provide it. Palestinians will welcome a Nato force, without hesitation. Nato is capable of providing security to Israel by policing its borders with Palestine.
Enforcing a Peace does not have to militarily. Binding Resolutions and economical sanctions can make the Israelis rethink. The European Community is Israel’s No. 1 trading partner. Israeli exports to the USA are all tax free.
If Israel truly wants peace, I do not understand why it would not cede the occupied lands to the Nato. The only reasons I can think of is Israel’s wish to retain occupied lands and/or the unwillingness of the Settler Movements and their backers to allow a withdrawal to take place without a fight. This is capable of igniting a civil war and the split up of the Israeli Army alongside extremists and rightists vs. Moderates and leftists. God knows who would be in charge of the Nukes then.
One thing for sure, in these days when fighting al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism is the head of the agenda, the free world will not be in a position to tolerate Jewish Terrorism.
After giving up 78% of Historical Palestine, the Palestinians have no other inch to give up for free. The larger the Settler Population becomes, the higher the cost of Peace is gonna be for Israel.
Israel will eventually comply with all UN resolutions. It can be easy way or the hard way.
“…Israel must return to the pre-war borders and find the way to compensate refugees…Maybe, we, Americans, should remember…” - and so on, and so forth…
Oleg
________________________________________ _________
Oleg,
Please don’t speak for us Americans. Maybe your point of view was legitimate (and, indeed, official) in USSR. Maybe it’s still prevalent in Russia/CIS with its ages-old traditions of Anti-Semitism. But there was no need for you to bring it in your baggage to America. Even when you write in English you can’t hide your Russian accent. Even though you are in America (as you claim), your view of the world has not changed from that fed on “Pravda” newspaper and “Vremya” TV news. Please look around and think - if regular Communist brainwashing in the past has not deprived you from that ability.
“…A Nato Force should move in immediately… Israel, the Palestinians and Syria will be given 6 months to achieve Peace, before one is enforced”
Awill IsNeeded
________________________________________ ______
Ever thought about imposing outside will on a modern nuclear power? Israel is no Somalia, Haiti, or even Yugoslavia. There are few armies even within NATO that can stand up to IDF. USA, GB, France - and that’s it, even Germany or Italy have lesser military forces, not even counting the nukes in. Besides, NATO is very much loss-averse and will not “move in” without Israel explicitly agreeing to that first - which will never happen. And even that only when there’s a political will within NATO, and there is none of it, nor is expected to be any. It all boils down to the fact that Israel is recognized by all of the civilized world as a legitimate democratic state (which it is, sometimes seems to be even too much of it for its own good), whereas HAMAS, Hizbullah, and like are recognized as terrorist entities (which they are without a shred of a doubt).
And if we raised the issue about imposition of a will, how about imposing on the Arabs recognition of Israel and its legitimate security concerns? How about making the Arab states accommodate Palestinian refugees within themselves, thus removing the biggest stumbling block of so-called “right of return”? To pay for the settlement with the funds they sucked from all of us when the oil prices ballooned beyond anything justifiable? This will prove much more doable than attempting to “impose” anything on Israel. After all, we saw what the Arab armies are worth. The mightiest of them all - Iraqi - crumbled within mere days both in 1991 and 2003.
Or maybe there should be no imposition at all. Imposed solutions and borders in Europe exploded 2 times into world wars. Only agreed upon solution resulted in EU. Maybe we should wait until all sides involved are ready to make peace, and for now just do what we can to keep the status quo from exploding.
Time has been “running out” since my childhood about 40 years ago. The problem with our young and rather naive politicians (read Obama), and journalists is that they do not understand that. Tell them to relax and focus on realistic problems, like getting back to the roots of our ideals.
It never ceases to amaze me how commentators such as Mr. Debusmann are always asking what the U.S. is willing to do to pressure Israel (e.g,. cutting off aid), but never ask what should be done to pressure the PA into making the most elemental concessions.
This would include, for starters, recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. This should be a precondition for any negotiations, and should be considered no more controversial than asking Russia to recognize the right fo Poland to exist as Polish state, or Germany to recognize the right of France to exist as a French state.
Yet, the “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah refuses to do even this, despite the fact that the PA receives hundreds of millions of dollars and euros every year, which they mostly use to line the pockets of their top officials and to promote anti-Jewish hate propaganda of the most loahtsome variety.
It is also curious that many commentators invoke the principle of “majority rule” in justifying a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but completely ignore this very same principle right next door in Jordan, which has always had a majority Palestinian population, but is ruled by the autocratic, minority sect Hashemite monarchy installed by the British in the 1920s.
So, here’s my solution:
-Democratic reforms in Jordan leave the monarchy in a ceremonial role, but real power is transferred to the Palestinian majority in that country. They already have a parliament. This could be billed as evolutionary change, and is no different than the current political situation in many European countries and Japan. This would mean the end of the PA as the sole representatives of Palestinian national aspirations, which would be all to the good, as everyone knows that the PA is not interested in a state of their own unless it can be built on the wreckage of an existing state: Israel.
Jordan IS Palestine! Just look at the maps from the immediate post-WW1 period: The British “Mandate of Palestine” included present-day Jordan! THAT is the proper “two state solution”. We don’t need a “three state solution” with a non-viable Palestinian micro state in the West Bank, that will only turn out like Gaza has, a base for more terrorism.
I realize some have suggested something like the “Jordanian option” before, and that the Jordanian leadership is not keen on this at present. But they receive a lot of aid from the West - chiefly the U.S - they have no oil, they are unpopular among their own people, and I submit that they can be convinced of the need for change. Also, unlike others who have suggested the “Jordanian option”, I don’t stop there. Read on.
-The West Bank becomes a demilitarized zone. Israel retains permanent national sovereignty over Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Maale Edumim, the major areas of Jewish settlement. They have the right to this; no country in history that has acquired territory in the course of a defensive war, as Israel did in the case of the West Bank in 1967, has ever been compelled to relinquish all acquired territory.
The Palestinian Arabs, in turn, are awarded sovereignty over the rest of the West Bank, which in turn confederates with Palestinian Jordan. NO ONE is required to move; all Palestinians and Jews in the West Bank can remain in place, as long as they are willing to accept jurisdiction of Arabs/Jews respectively as the map is drawn, THEIR RIGHTS RESPECTED IN ALL CASES. During a cooling off period, joint Palestinian/Israeli patrols maintain calm.
-Gaza reverts to Egyptian control, per pre-1967 arrangements, and remains demilitarized along with Sinai. Palestinians residing in Gaza would have the option of becoming Egyptian nationals, or relocating to Palestinian Jordan, perhaps with some financial incentives provided by the Arab community. It should be noted that such a relocation, in geographic terms, woudl really be no more onerous than my having relocated from Chicago, Illinois, to Monroe, Michigan, for a job opportunity some time back. Egypt would be responsible for cleaning up the mess they helped create in Gaza in the first place (Hamas, Al-Queda, etc.). Any more rockets into southern Israel from that quarter, and Israel holds Egypt directly responsible.
Everthing I suggest above is consistent with UNSCR 242. The Palestinians may not get the whole of the West Bank, but they still get about 60/70% of it (I’ve never made a precise calculation), AND THEY GET ALL OF JORDAN.
If Obama is REALLY about change, he might consider ideas of the type I suggest above. Otherwise, with respect to his approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, he really represents nothing more than four more years of the same ‘ol same ‘ol.
The Arab /Israeli disaster began in 1947. All in response to the Nazi pinnacle of anti-semitism. It should be noted that Jewish refugees from World War II were refused entrance into many countries subsequent to the War. Centuries of persecution and genocide lead many Jewish people to believe the establishment of a Jewish state necessary for their survival.
While it is evident that throughout history few nations have been sympathetic to the plight of Jewish people, it cannot be said that is a problem of the past. Just as racism towards people of color persists so does anti- semitism. My best guess is that such feelings of hate are inherent deep seated survival instincts the no longer serve us, and we should recognize this as such.
We live in a world of diminishing resources and a growing human population. The opportunity for conflict will only increase. We must temper our nature and reverse the trend of burning up the planet. We cannot fail to act regarding certain issues in favor of acting upon others. I believe the consequences of disinterest and apathy are far to costly.
Dr. Freedlander
It is pathetic that you are equating lethal Jewish Settlers in Jerusalem and the West Bank with the natural rights of Palestinians who have always lived inside what is now Israel. Settlers in occupied lands have no rights whatsoever.
What you call “Ideally” is suitable to Israel only. Offering Palestinian Israelis a foreign citizenship (even if Palestinian) is aimed at refraining from renewing their residence permits in Israel at some point in time, thus subjecting them to mass deportation. Once again, Palestinians would be made to leave their homes, business, and assets behind. This “Ideally” idea is a non-starter.
If Israel truly wishes to significantly reduce the number of non-jewish citizens in its jewish midst, it should agree to withdraw to the original 1947 Palestine Partition borders, thus ridding itself of most of its Christians and Moslem population in a fair way.
Israel cannot continue to seek more land free of non-jews. If a true jewish ghetto is being sought, then Israel should rid itself of Palestinians along their lands.
Disappointing but true that not much can be expected from the soon-to be-in charge Obama administration about this issue. The signs are not encouraging.
It would be surprising if Hillary Clinton takes a radical approach to negotiate a peace treaty. She (and Obama) are certainly not free of the influence of Israeli lobbies.
The people in the center of the strife — the Palestinians and Israelis — ought forget about god, chosen people, etc., and think in terms of the human factor. Their future of their children and grand children should be the primary reason for reaching an
agreement….a just agreement. Both sides should be ready and willing to make compromises.
Bernd,
The USA and EU, with assent by the PA and Israel, have invited Hamas to negotiate, in or out of a unity government, if and whenever it agrees to renounce attacks on Israeli civilians, recognize the right of a Israel to exist, and abide by prior PA agreements. They could then participate in negotiating new agreements and new borders. They candidly refuse all 3 terms. Who will be at their back with a sledgehammer?
What other ‘blockade’ ever allowed food, medicine, fuel, and electricity through to a sworn enemy? What other country would stop at what you refer to as a blockade of a state that was shelling them? In any case, Egypt twice brokered a lifting of the partial blockade of Gaza in exchange for a cessation of shelling of Israel from Gaza, no recognition required. Hamas has twice broken even this agreement.
A vast majority of Israelis would surrender the bulk of the settlements as part of a agreement that included a finality of claims. Ehud Barak made this offer in 2000, and the Labor and Kadima parties would do so now. Surveys of the Palestinians reveal that only 5% of Palestinians would accept a two state solution with finality of claims, although another 40% would accept it as a temporary solution. Who will coax the Palestinians towards compromise?
The answer is indeed a two state solution. Thereafter citizens of each state could apply for residency permits in the other state, but maintain voting and citizenship rights only in their own state. Ideally 1.3 million Israeli Arabs and 240,000 Jewish settlers could choose one citizenship or the other, have their residencies grandfathered in, and be required to follow the laws of their host state.
People that call that land their home should negotiate by themselves how they would like to live there, without interfering from friends and neighbors. To avoid any side to behave genocidal, or in any other way criminal, entire territory should be placed under jurisdiction of respectable entity (International Criminal Court perhaps). Forced by fact that all human have the same rights and that all human should be respected and treated the same, positive atmosphere would enable creation of lasting and peaceful solution. If America, EU, or Islamic countries would like to see this resolved, they should declare themselves the friends and brothers of the parties involved and therefore subjective to help out directly. To prove their friendship and brotherhood America, EU, or Islamic countries should give full support to respectable jurisdiction.
The one-state solution is the most impossible, unworkable solution to the conflict ever devised. It is not gaining any support whatsoever with the overwhelming majority of both Israelis and Palestinians.
There are virtually no cultural similarities that could be counted on to build a shared society. There is no common language, no common religion, no common history. The only thing these two societies do share is mistrust and animosity.
There are also no historical examples of a one-state style solution. In fact there are numerous examples of failed multi-ethnic states. Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Iraq, are examples of what would be in store for the region if a one-state solution was foisted on Israelis and Palestinians.
While the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has been bitter, it has also been relatively non-violent when compared to other major conflicts involving ethnic strife such as Rwanda or Darfur. Imposing a one-state solution is the best way to maximize violence, hostility and death.
What these two societies need is a divorce, not a marriage. Making that happen requires ensuring that both sides receive what they want. For Israelis that means security and peace and for the Palestinians it means an independent state.
Leaving Negotiations to Israelis and Palestinians is like pissing against the wind. All the Leverage is just one sided - Israel\’s. Israel is the occupying Force, Owners of the Settlers, of Arab East Jerusalem, Supported by Western Media, News Pundists, Lobbies and AIPAC. The Palestinians have their populations in exile, under occupation, under restriction, under siege or in Israeli Jails. How can a true and lasting peace be achieved?
A New UN Security Council Resolution should Expand and Affirm Resolutions 242, 338, and all these resolutions pertaining to Israel\’s illegal Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and the presence of Settlers.
A Nato Force should move in immediately to replace Israeli troops in and around the major Palestinian Cities in the West Bank and move into Gaza in exchange of proclaiming Gaza the first liberated part of the New Palestinian State.
Israel, the Palestinians and Syria will be given 6 months to achieve Peace, before one is enforced.
I do feel that this “final solution” to this problem is the crux of the problem. The palestinians have had a country it is called Jordan. Jordan is ruled by the family from Saudi Arabia. The palestinians are not an indigenous people and should not be treated as such. They have had the opportunity to establish a state in the early seventies but lost the bid in Jordan. The rest of the arab world should just absorb them and call it a day. Israel has given and given changed and changed it is enough. If the so called palestinians want a country tell the false ruler of Jordan to leave and go there. You dont believe me about Jordan look for yourself Jordan is ruled by Saudis not Jordanians!
Dear Bernd,
This problem has stumped everyone since 47, I don’t think we can be critical of Obama of not being original in his approach. It could be the one Great Thing he does and we should give him time to get into office, meet with those parties necessary to productive resolutions and spend some time amply considering this problem against the backdrop of waining enthusiasm for the US in the Middle East.
Personally, I think Domestic Issues are of premium importance and that any constructive action on the area of Palestine Israeli conflict would come far later in the Obama administration.
Hillary Clinton was calling for strikes on Iran…
So we should not be surprized by the S-O-S.
Thanks as always for room to express an opinion, I wish all parties a peaceful and constructive co-existance free from terror and counter strike no matter how long it takes. There has been enough innocent blood lost in the Middle East to saticefy any appetite, even Bin Laden’s. It is time to lay down arms and do the difficult work of peace.