The Future Of Israel

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 13:56


OK, I am going to lay out my thoughts on Israel and Palestine.

Yesterday, as you have almost certainly heard by now, Israel's Central Election Committee banned the two major Arab political parties in the country from running in next month's elections. The ruling will probably be overturned by the Israeli supreme court, but it is still a disturbing development for the future of Israel.

In the long-term, say 30 years or so, there will be one of two possible outcomes in Israel and Palestine:

  1. An autonomous, Jewish majority Israel bordering an autonomous, Palestinian majority Palestine, with neither under occupation or threat of invasion. Essentially, a two-state solution. This is the outcome currently desired by 60-70% of both Palestinians and Israelis.

  2. A single, democratic state with a Palestinian majority that encompasses all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. This is not a commonly discussed outcome now, but it is more possible down the road than most people think.

I provide an explanation for this view in the extended entry.
Chris Bowers :: The Future Of Israel
Over the long-term, the following two outcomes will not take place in the region:

  1. The destruction of either the Israeli or Palestinian peoples will not happen. Despite the rhetoric and violence from various factions and governments seeking this outcome, this simply is not going to happen. There will never be an ethnically homogeneous nation-state covering all of the current Israel, Gaza and West Bank. Not. Gonna. Happen.

  2. The status quo, of a mostly democratic Israel occupying Palestinian territories that are not functional as nation-states, in also untenable. Israel simply cannot maintain an apartheid operation and a democratic state at the same time. Democracy will collapse if apartheid is maintained. Disallowing the Arab parties from running in the elections next month should be understood as the start of that process. (And no, referring to it as apartheid is not controversial. During my trip to Israel, it was a word that Israeli politicians of all stripes had no difficulty using to describe the current situation.)

With this in mind, here is the chain of events that will lead to one of the two possible outcomes described at the start of this post:

  1. First, an increasing number of factions and governments will abandon the nonsensical belief that either a homogeneous nation state can be formed across all of Israel and Palestine, or that Israeli democracy and be maintained under a system of apartheid. This will lead to step two...

  2. Next, increasingly feverish attempts will be made to forge a two-state solution that is supported by both a majority of Israelis and a majority of Palestinians. However, the two sides are further apart in reaching a potential agreement than I think most people recognize. The presentation that I saw on this matter at the PLO negotiation headquarters in Ramallah was absolutely devastating. The system of highways, the Jordanian valley occupation, the security fence, the control of important water resources, and other current Israeli proposals appeared, from my vantage point, to make an independent West Bank nation utterly untenable. The two sides are simply not close to an agreement that will result in two functional nation states. Some may call this an Arab rejectionism dodge on my part, but it is no such thing and comes straight from my experiences in talking with the PLO leadership itself. If there is no agreement that results in two tenable nation states, there will be no reason for the Palestinian leadership to ever agree to a two state solution. And right now, Israel is simply not proposing a tenable Palestinian state. If this continues, it will lead to step three...

  3. An abandonment of attempts to either destroy Israel or forge a two-state solution, and instead for Palestinians to just start calling for one person, one vote, across the entire region. If there is no two-state solution, this is what will eventually happen. Popular opinion on either side is nowhere close to this position right now, but once more people give up on trying to completely destroy the other side (a process that has been underway for at least fifteen years), and then if people think a two-state solution cannot be forged (which will happen unless there is a lot of movement from both sides), then the only available alternative will be for Palestinians to start calling, en masse, for one person, one vote, across the entire territory. It will happen sooner than many think.

Once step three is reached, the end result will be, ala South Africa, the end of apartheid and the establishment of a single democratic state. If one person, one vote becomes the broad call from Palestinians, it will be impossible for Israel to hold off against international opinion.

This is actually why I think Israel's invasion of Gaza is both wrong and self-defeating. Long-term, a two-state solution is the only way to preserve Israel as a Jewish majority, basically democratic state. While Hamas is not interested in a two-state solution, and currently in the deluded "destroy the other side" camp, the invasion of Gaza won't reduce Hamas's ranks, it will expand them. It won't stop rockets from being sent into Israel, either. It obviously won't further the peace process, as a move like this will prevent talks and embitter both sides.

To repeat: long-term, a two-state solution is the only way to preserve Israel as a Jewish majority, basically democratic state. Such a solution is not nearly as close as many think, and this invasion only pushes it further away. It is true that what I am saying here is merely long-term speculation, and no one can know the future for certain, but disallowing the Arab parties from running in the elections next month makes one think that the point where the final incompatibility of Israel democracy and occupation of Palestinian territories is closer than it recently appeared to be.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Future Of Israel | 49 comments
I'm all for #2 (4.00 / 1)
I strongly believe in a ONE state solution for several reasons.

1) There will always be Palestinians who feel personal connections to areas in contiguous Israel (Haifa, Jaffa, etc) and there will always be Israelis who feel personalk connections to areas in contiguous Palestine (West Bank).  A two state solution will leave those individuals dissatisfied and radicalized.

2) There is no acceptable solution for Jerusalem under a two-state solution.  Both sides want Jerusalem for themselves and that's been a huge sticking point.  The status of Jerusalem is a much easier question in a one state solution.

My suggestion is a case-study in Lebanon, which was a decently functioning democracy up until the intensified Syrian involvement.  Lebanon's constitution allowed for specific power to the minority Christians.  That sort of power-sharing agreement would be necessary to both sides in order to avoid political disenfranchisement.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan

What about our role? (4.00 / 5)
The two sides are simply not close to an agreement that will result in two functional nation states. Some may call this an Arab rejectionism dodge on my part, but it is no such thing and comes straight from my experiences in talking with the PLO leadership itself. If there is no agreement that results in two tenable nation states, there will be no reason for the Palestinian leadership to ever agree to a two state solution.

If we played an active role, couldn't we force Israel to propose a solution that would create two tenable nation states? If any form of a two state solution isn't possible that's one thing, but don't don't we basically control Israel's hand due to the billions of military aid we send them?

Not that this is at all probable given AIPAC's strength, but in theory couldn't we play hardball with that military aid if they didn't change their policies?

Yeah (4.00 / 7)
The UN GE recently voted overwhelmingly for a 2-state solution based on pre-June 1967 borders and also voted overwhelmingly for a "divided" Jerusalem.

The only countries of any power voted against were the US, Israel, and Australia on the first, and just US and Israel on the second.

Such a settlement, as Chris mentions, has the support of about 70 percent of both Palestinians and Israelis, or it did before Israel's invasion. Indeed, there's considerable evidence that Hamas was moving toward acceptance of a two state settlement, and that was one of the reasons for the invasion.

Even with this invasion, if the US got serious about a settlement it would be quite close. (Yet as DA Miller points out in Newsweek, not once in 20 years had the US so much as discussed with Israel the harmful effects of the settlements!)

Now, who knows if the settlement would hold? But the elusiveness of an agreement is significant enough without us exaggerating it.


[ Parent ]
even today Clinton said they wouldn't negotiate w/Hamas, so (0.00 / 0)
nothing will change, tragically.

We need to stop all aid and all arms and all trade -- and other support to Israel immediately -- and use it all as ransom to get Israel to stop all their shit.  

[ Parent ]
I don't see the single-state scenario happening (0.00 / 0)
I can see the plausibility of the two-state outcome. But it's really hard for me to envision a scenario in which the Israeli Jews willingly cede power to an emerging Palestinian majority. If things move in the direction you predict, there will come a point in time when the Jewish population essentially controls the Israeli military and security apparatus, while a Palestinian/Arab majority is gaining increasing legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion for its calls for enfranchisement. At this point, Israel will have every reason in the world to make concessions in order to come to a two-state resolution, and the Palestinians will have plenty of incentive to accept a two-state resolution as well. The alternative would be for Israeli Jews to simply allow Palestinians to gain control of the Israeli state, and why would they do that?

Another implication of this is that the sooner a two-state solution is reached, the better it will be for Israel, whereas the Palestinians have some incentive to simply delay the peace process as the demographics continue to evolve in their favor.

A one-state solution doesn't stop the violence (4.00 / 3)
Jews and Palestinians tend to have wildly differing economic circumstances. A one-state solution will require a lot of aid to Palestinian neighbourhoods and Israeli Jews are going to feel that they're being fleeced to pay for this. That will induce a backlash along the lines of what we've seen in Belgium (which is part of the reason why Electronic Intifada, although a clever idea, is not the solution.)

Meantime this economic separation, combined with the widespread presence of extremist ideologies in Palestine, provides all the needed ammunition for continuing terror campaigns, such as a resumption of widespread suicide bombing. If that's targetted at right-wing Israeli parties like Yisrael Beiteinu, it could create a negative feedback loop and provide the opportunity for Islamic Jihad and more radical groups to take a leading position amongst Palestinians.

Then there's the problem of policing and the military - Jewish cops are going to have difficulty policing Jenin, and the IDF is hardly going to be happy about taking in mid-level officers whose previous employment was with Hamas.

Above all else, there is one big problem that would need solving: what do you do about the tyranny of the majority?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

how about the tyranny of low expectations (0.00 / 0)
Is this reflective of your opinion of human nature in general or just of the people in the Middle East, more specifically the Palestinians?
[ Parent ]
How is this low expectations? (4.00 / 1)
I expect them not to be satisfied with forming a permanent underclass in any postulated single Palestinian state.

I also expect the Israelis not to be overjoyed about having to share the spoils.

I am a pessimist, yes, but how are these unrealistically low expectations? What would be a reasonable level of expectations? Assuming that Palestinians and Israelis will suddenly be best of friends, go lay down with a lion and a lamb and then jump up, hug each other and sing glory halleluhjah?

There are more difficulties here than guns and bombs. There are deep economic, social and educational problems, a legacy of mistrust and well-established networks of violence. A one-state solution is guaranteed to be at least as messy as a two-state solution. That's just common sense.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
difficulties more difficult than guns and bombs (0.00 / 0)
"deep economic, social and educational problems, a legacy of mistrust and well-established networks of violence"

Aren't these conditions that existed in apartheid South Africa? I think Chris' analogy is quite appropriate in that the demographics of Israel-Palestine will eventually have the same consequence that occurred in South Africa where the white colonialists, despite their claims to the land and all the other seemingly intractable dominance of the society, were overwhelmed by the sheer ineluctable biology of populations. There are greater forces at work than social movement and sectarian violence.
[ Parent ]
South Africa isn't doing great (4.00 / 1)
It's seen a huge outpouring of its white population and most of those who remain live in armed compounds.

There are constant tensions between communities over quotas, serious violence against foreign workers has broken out because of fears over jobs and unemployment remains high.

And this in a country with the best economy on its continent.

Moreover, Israelis will be a much larger minority than white South Africans were, and there's unlikely to be something to mirror the Anglo/Boer split. Think of South Africa as the best case scenario barring massive investment. We really need to be aiming higher than that.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
The No State "Solution" (4.00 / 1)
Without any desire or ability to come to any agreement on anything, all sides keep fighting and escalating the violence until, 30 years hence, the region has been so ecologically and economically devasted by the never-ending war and resentment that is reduced to a wasteland where no human can eke out any kind of life.

Standing back, looking upon the utter destruction of what many humans consider the "Holy" land of three major world religions, all of which profess peace and love, the question will become: "Have we yet learned our lesson?"

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

And remember... (4.00 / 3)
there are nukes involved.

James Carroll pointed out yesterday that this factor may be more immanent than we imagine, as Hamas' popguns can just about reach Dimona, the "secret" Israeli nuke base.

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
My solution (4.00 / 1)
I don't think either side feels comfortable appearing to give in, even if there is mutual caving in on both sides.  Neither side wants to show weakness and I don't really blame them for that sentiment.  I feel like any solution has to feel like it is imposed on both sides so that they can blame someone else rather than each other.

I'm not sure if this is logistically possible, but I would like to explore the idea of a two-state solution separated by a demilitarized zone manned by UN troops that are most likely going to be mostly Americans.  It's going to make the US a target of potentially violent radicals on both sides, but anyone who creates peace has to deal with that risk.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Would the Palestenians actually trust such a force if it were America-dominated? (4.00 / 1)
Also, could a DMZ actually make any difference given that the conflict now seems to be settling into a pattern where all direct violence is long range (i.e. the Palestinians fire homemade rockets, Israel fire missiles back)? Poking at wikipedia it appears any DMZ would have to be roughly the size of the west bank itself (10km wide) in order to create a buffer large enough that rockets couldn't just be fired over it, and that's assuming no further advancements in the rocket technology. It seems like this is just a more sophisticated  variant of the Wall strategy.
[ Parent ]
It would take some time (0.00 / 0)
The US would have to establish itself as an honest broker, which would take some work.

I don't see a need for a buffer so wide that rockets can't be fired over, but it is sort of going to obligate the US to retaliate if either side fires rocket.  What will happen if radical Zionists fire rockets and the US fires in return, nicking a few civilians in the process?

It's going to be a mess, but I really do believe that if outside intervention doesn't force a solution, the long-term result will be a nuclear detonation of some sort.  Israel's strategy seems to be to deny any other power in the region nuclear arms by any means necessary to forestall an atomic showdown.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
this si what the israeli state is doing in gaza now, reportedly (4.00 / 3)
they're creating a buffer zone between the hamas rockets and the southern portions of israel.  If you throw in UN troops in that buffer, that's a new "fact on the ground" that legitimizes this war.  So I don't buy this as an evenhanded solution.
[ Parent ]
Devil's advocacy: (4.00 / 3)
Keep in mind I ask these questions largely out of ignorance, but:

The status quo, of a mostly democratic Israel occupying Palestinian territories that are not functional as nation-states, in also untenable.

...what I immediately wonder is, how long has it been tenabling so far? Hasn't the status quo been going on for thirty or forty years? It seems to me a status quo, especially if it's this terrible, has to be pretty darn tenable, to maintain itself through such a long time period and so many changes. What is/has been changing now, that makes thirty more years untenable where the thirty last years were tenable?

You're clearly right that a drastic action like barring the arabic parties is walking toward the brink where the situation can't sustain itself, but that in particular is also a reversible enough action they could just walk back from the brink. (And then wait five years and start walking back toward it again.)

This is as good a read (4.00 / 2)
of the I/P conflict as I have read.

The problem with a one-state solution is that it means abandoning a core objective of the founding of Isreal: a Jewish State.  I don't see that happening.  Ever.

But I also don't see how a two state solution can work.  First, because I don't think either side is willing to compromise on Jerusalem.  Second, when I look at a map I can't see how either state in a two state solution is really sustainable in the long term.  

This implies that the only solution is some sort of overall confederation governing two seperate states: but I can't for the life of me figure out how that would work.

Americans tend to look at problems and believe that they have solutions.  The problem is that that there are problems in this world that aren't solvable.   I have long tended to believe the I/P conflict is one problem with no realistic solution.  

the Israeli state is not a democracy (4.00 / 4)
maybe it was once upon a time - I don't know - but it is not a democracy today.  Paul's description of it as a herrenvolk democracy is more accurate.  It also makes more sense to consider Israel/Palestine as an entire region - it already is one state - as you can see from the way that the population of Gaza has no control over their own 'borders', etc.

I also think you are underestimating the possibility of largescale ethnic cleansing (by one or both sides).  

Your mechanism for how a two-state solution could emerge is intriguing, though.  I think the other thing that needs to be considered here is what happens if U.S. hegemony or support for Israel collapse.

Why is Israel not a democracy? (4.00 / 2)
A democracy is a form of government where all citizens get a vote in how they are governed. And that is true in Israel: All citizens, whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or whatever, get a vote. You can argue that more people (i.e. Palestinians) SHOULD be citizens, but that's a very different question. You could also argue that a lot more Latino immigrants in America should be citizens, but that doesn't make America undemocratic.
[ Parent ]
While everyone can vote (0.00 / 0)
Israeli Arabs face discrimination in employment and education.  I say that negatively impacts democracy.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November
[ Parent ]
That's racism/bigotry, not anti-democratic. n/t (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
oh come on... (4.00 / 2)
The significance of voting is that you have a choice. if you remove people's choices then you eviscerate the meaning of their vote - same as if you had denied them the right to vote in the first place.
[ Parent ]
As far as disallowing parties... (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, obviously, that's anti-democratic.  To say that Israel seizes to be a democratic country, though, is over-dramatic.  At least an elected legislature passed the law, and at least the Israeli Supreme Court will (hopefully) overturn it.  In fact, assuming that happens, that seems like just the kind of checks and balances that we hope democracies practice.
[ Parent ]
"You can argue that more people (i.e. Palestinians) SHOULD be citizens, but that's a very different question." (4.00 / 1)
is it, really? democracy imo is about persons sharing power more or less equitably, not legal categories of citizenship, which always exclude people.  But how far a country has to go in socially or politically or legally excluding people before it is labeled "not a democracy" is a fair question, and I respect your right to a different opinion than mine as long as the facts are acknowledged on both sides.  So I welcome points like the ones you made.

If you want to see some of the perspectives, There's one argument in this article about why it's not.  Here's another piece of evidence:

The Israeli parliament passed a law preventing Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship.

Human rights groups have condemned the law as racist but supporters say it is necessary for security reasons and to maintain the Jewish character of the state of Israel.

The law will prevent Palestinians from the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza from marrying Arab-Israelis, who make up about 20% of the population of Israel.

A total of 53 deputies voted for the measure and 25 against, while there was one abstention, according to a spokesman.

Until now, the Israeli interior minister has had the final say on whether Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens can receive citizenship and make a home in Israel.

Interior Minister Avraham Poraz said he welcomed the proposed bill - reluctantly.

"I wish we didn't need this law, I'm not thrilled with it, but there was a government decision and I must follow it," he said.

According to the government, 16,000 applications were approved in the past decade after intense security checks.

i think if we were to add up all the pieces of evidence about the behavior of the Israeli state towards all of the people who are under its de facto control it's hard to imagine calling it a democracy.  But that's my perspective based on what I have seen, so more information is always welcome.

[ Parent ]
Large-scale ethnic cleansing (0.00 / 0)
I know there are frighteningly many people on both sides who openly advocate ethnic cleansing, and many more who would be OK with it. I really don't see how it could be done.

I think there was a time when Israel hoped that if they clamped down enough on the occupied territories, they would depopulate "voluntarily." That's obviously not happening. The sort of adversity and existential uncertainty faced by the residents of the occupied territories actually causes brithrates to skyrocket. You can sort of understand why. When you suspect that three of your sons won't reach adulthood, you have five. Anthropologists find these demographic patterns happen in similar circumstances all over the world and throughout history.

The Palestinians are not about to pick up and move to Jordan or Syria or whatever.

But I suspect that many Israelis hold out hope that Israel might one day oversee a forced exodus of the occupied territories. I think they picture every Palestinian being loaded on a train to Jordan, being given a resettlement grant, and being wished good luck. Something similar happened at the end of WW2, when German families were ejected from the Sudatenland of Czechoslovakia (minus the resettlement grant, though the issue of Czech reparation payments to Germany never seems to quite die).

I should say that to me, such a forced exodus seems monstrously unjust. Resentment about it would linger for generations, especially since social and economic conditions in Jordan probably won't quite be up to par with Germany. However, despite the horrendous unfairness, it could work -  by which I mean, the Palestinians in Jordan (with a generous economic development program akin to the Marshall Plan, financed by Israel, Europe and North America) would have better lives than in the devastated West Bank. And in this, the benefit to Israel would also be obvious.

It seems to me probable that the dynamics of this situation are not analogous to the Sudatenland, because ejected German families didn't exactly coalesce into anti-Czech terrorist militias. My take is that only prosperity on both sides could end the terrorism. But since the isolation of the West Bank makes prosperity there pretty much inconceivable (even if there is a two-state solution), all of the options look really bad, and maybe the forced resettlement option is the least bad.

[ Parent ]
how it could be done? (0.00 / 0)
I know there are frighteningly many people on both sides who openly advocate ethnic cleansing, and many more who would be OK with it. I really don't see how it could be done.

Have you seen Elizabeth Kucinich's chart?  That's how it's been done, whether in a fit of not paying attention or through deliberate and concerted effort or, imo, some combination of the two.

[ Parent ]
This Is A Very Ratioinal, Sober Overview (4.00 / 1)
but when has the Mideast ever been rational and sober?

Englishlefty points to some of the things that could happen.  Look to South Africa for other problems with the one-state path.

I say this as someone who does favor the one-state solution.  I just think we have to realize that although it's most likely the best solution, it's still going have a lot of problems which will require substantially more effort to produce a really viable future.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

So what will it take... (4.00 / 3)
for us to get busy boycotting this apartheid state? There's currently a call for such in the Nation.

Our rulers in the US may be intent on propping up Israeli intransigence forever, but so was Reagan re South Africa.  

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
Divestment? (4.00 / 1)
Wasn't it the witholding of investment funds from foreign nations and institutions that helped to speed along the end of apartheid?  Do you think these institutions are ready to start divesting from the M.E. and Israel?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
More the end of the Soviet Union (0.00 / 0)
And hence the end of the Red Menace argument, which led directly to the contradictions in South African society becoming unsustainable.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
True (0.00 / 0)
but I worked in South Africa right after Mandela was released (on anti-apartheid newspapers.) And white South Africans were pretty devastated by being international pariahs. The sports and cultural boycotts irked them horribly. These probably had more impact than the under-observed economic sanctions. I think many Israelis would feel similarly and press for accommodation from their government. Or emigrate. Actually, a lot of those who can are already doing the latter.

Can it happen here?
[ Parent ]
Cultural priorities (4.00 / 1)
South Africans (and Rhodesians) were renowned for being sport mad.

I don't know that Israelis have the same connections. Sport is not a great part of their identity and cultural exchanges often falter on the academic boycotts now in place. Their great connection is through Jewish identity, and I just don't see that being affected by anything other than stopping flights.

It would have an effect, but I think we're talking about a very small one.

Even in South Africa, the dismantling of petty apartheid had removed a lot of the system's internal rationale and that combined with the end of the Soviet Union could probably still have toppled it.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Economic Sanctions? (0.00 / 0)
How much non-government money flows to Israel? I'm assuming the US government will not stop any financial support, but how much could potentially be withheld? Who would do such a thing?

Up-thread, you mentioned the collapse of the Soviet Union in terms of the end of apartheid in South Africa. That event changed the global political environment and thus, influenced the local social political culture. Short of out-right collapse, I wonder if the "last remaining" super power can induce a change of similar magnitude in the global political realm? Obviously, UN resolutions, campaign speeches, and summit meetings are not of sufficient scale, nor are bombing campaigns,unguided missiles, ground assaults, or elections, apparently. Which brings us back to...

sanctions.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Similar to South Africa, but Palestinians don't have the leverage. (4.00 / 4)
I absolutely agree with you that situation in Israel/Palestine can only be described as apartheid.  However, there is one notable difference.  Blacks in South Africa were the working class - the white economy could not function without them.  When they chose to resist, both as consumers and as workers, it became impossible for South Africa to function.

In contrast, Palestinians are now fairly irrelevant to the Israeli economy.  They used to be a major portion of the working class, but have been replaced with guest workers from other countries.  Unless Palestinians are again integrated into the Israeli economy, I cannot see the domestic leverage they would have to push a one-state solution, even if I consider a one-state solution to be the best possible result.  

Violence is their best leverage (4.00 / 1)
It just doesn't make rational sense for Palestinians to forswear violent means as a precondition for negotiations.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
violence makes it easier for Israel to justify their repression. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Israeli repression makes it easier to justify violence... (4.00 / 1)
and so forth...
[ Parent ]
Fladem is right (4.00 / 2)
There are some situations that are unsolvable unless some major tectonic change happens, in this case affecting the incentives for peace among leaders in the region. Simply put, there is no incentive for either Israeli or Palestinian leaders to take risks or make concessions for peace. In fact, the opposite is true: Invariably both are made stronger politically by virtue of violence. While average folks on both sides, mostly Palestinian, suffer. Americans are generally not likely to recognize situations like this for what they are. They tend instead to try and find heroes and villains (based on ideology) and to fight their "courageous" wars from their keyboards 10,000 miles away.

I don't know what changes the incentives. Perhaps the regional Arab powers could do it. They generally hate groups like Hamas and Hezbollah because they distrust their sponsor Iran (which isn't Arab) and because they sprung from Muslimist groups in their own countries that are threats to governing regimes. Perhaps if those regional powers, excepting Iran of course, get together and offer Israel real, lasting peace and recognition in exchange for real concessions on a two state solution, including economic concessions and a partitioned Jerusalem, the incentives change. The Palestinian people get a state (governed by non-extremists) or a fight (governed by extremists). Perhaps they can then choose their own destiny. And the Israeli people get a far more certain future for their children, and can control theirs. The equation changes, and leaders no longer have the option of inciting violence (what appears to have happened here) to improve their political standing.

In this scenario there is one thing, and one thing only, that America can do to help: Stop making the regional Arab powers rich. Threaten them economically, and they start thinking more realistically about the future of the region. In the end, much of this comes down to oil. And really, what doesn't?

Behind The Curve (4.00 / 7)
I don't know what changes the incentives. Perhaps the regional Arab powers could do it. They generally hate groups like Hamas and Hezbollah because they distrust their sponsor Iran (which isn't Arab) and because they sprung from Muslimist groups in their own countries that are threats to governing regimes. Perhaps if those regional powers, excepting Iran of course, get together and offer Israel real, lasting peace and recognition in exchange for real concessions on a two state solution, including economic concessions and a partitioned Jerusalem, the incentives change.

The Arab League did precisely this back 2002, with a peace offer that both Anthony Zinni and Colin Powell thought was very promising. But Bush wasn't interested in that in the least.  He was monomaniacally focused on cooking up war with Iraq, and didn't have time for anything else.  I wrote about this for Random Lengths News in 2006, when Israel foolishly attacked Lebanon, and republished the article here on Decewmber 28.

What will be Obama's excuse, one wonders?

The deal is still on the table.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Another tectonic change is the collapse/shrinking of American empire which leads to a significant cutback of our military support of Israel. (4.00 / 2)
The huge military outlay that is required by our stance of empire is not sustainable for the long term and I think we are closer than it first appears to having to give up our huge military outlays because of the financial crisis.

If/when the US stops backing Israel with so much money and military might, the situation with respect to the oppression of the Palestinians will change.  

I do not have a clear enough crystal ball to say when, or in more detail how, all this will happen.

[ Parent ]
well-reasoned, but the wildcard is the settlers (4.00 / 3)
They were crazy enough being removed from Gaza, or temporarily from a single hilltop in the West Bank.  I don't see any foreseeable Israel government having the guts to take them on.  The settlers are fascists, and will fight to the death.

Your one-state scenario looks much more likely, and its viability will come from international isolation of Israel.  The two-state solution runs into all sorts of problems when it comes to U.S. domestic politics.

But the one-state solution (one person, one vote) is as American as apple pie.  And it highlights the racial/religious character of Israel, which is much less savory to Americans than a national characterization of Israel.

Something you can do on Gaza (4.00 / 4)
Your article raises the issue very well of what is realistic for the future. "Realism" is the constant theme of those who say either side has to hit hard to get traction.
We at Tikkun magazine have been trying for over 20 years to put the other side: that the psychological foundations for peace can only be built when each side is empathetic and generous to the other. That is actually more realistic than what has been happening, and many people understand this to be so.
We have had no luck getting this viewpoint into MSM, (except in the London Times last week http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t... ) so we have paid for a full page ad in the NY Times that should come out tomorrow. Leading rabbis, writers, ministers, and so far over 2,800 people have joined us. Mostly in very small donations we've raised enough for that ad, and want to raise more to put it in more places. Please help us do that and sign it and / or talk it up around the blogosphere. You can read it at http://www.spiritualprogressiv...
This maybe way too out there, but how about a hybrid option? (4.00 / 5)
Something like a loose federation of Israel and Palestine as quasi-independent states in a joint federation with a weak national/unity government, where territorially separate  Israeli and Palestinian regions have significant sovereignty over their own territories, but have a strict 50/50 national government which would be responsible for collecting/distributing tax revenues, delivering essential services (i.e. water, electricity, etc,) equally throughout the joint territory, and resolving disputes between the territories.  
there is no way palestinians will ever be dominating isreal (0.00 / 0)
there will never be a democratic single state. ever.

palestinians will eventually have whatever territory isreal decides to give them. it will be defined by walls and enforced with guns. isreal will leave it to palestinians whether they want to organize their county into one or two. isreal will have very strict boarder control and only do business with the palestinians when they feel like it. the world will not make isreal accept palestinian votes; because the one thing the western world hates more than jews is muslims. the more drastic terms of this will exist until a) isreal feels less threatened, or b) palestinians get bigger guns.  

~* the * Will * to go on *~

Another possibility (0.00 / 0)
Another possibility is that Gaza become an administrative unit of Egypt and the West Bank a similar entity under Jordan.

What these "administrative units" would look like is open to discussion. For example the Kurds have similar arrangements in the various states where they live.

Then a real solution needs to deal with all those displaced from the region who are being kept bottled up in refugee camps. This has been going on for 60 years. Just look at the battles that took place in the camps in Lebanon last year.

Why does no one speak about the role the other Arab states play by refusing to allow displaced people to integrate into the societies where they have now lived for three generations?

What you are seeing is a cock fight. Two birds with metal talons are fighting in a cage. People are decrying all the bloodshed, but no one asks who put them in the cage, who controls the cage and who armed them? By the time the fight starts the real issues get swept aside.

The Arab states have been keeping this festering for 60 years for reasons of their own. I claim it is because they want to distract their own populations from the gross economic inequality common in the region, both within states and between them. People in Cairo live in slums while Dubai is building an air-conditioned beach in the desert.

Imagine what would happen if the local populations started to look at the causes for the injustices in their lives and realized it was their non-democratic leaders that were responsible, not Israel.

I have a chart which show how oil wealth is distributed on a per capital basis in the region.

http://robertdfeinman.com/soci...

The variations in wealth are striking.

Policies not Politics

Where's the incentive for Egypt and Jordan (4.00 / 1)
The West Bank and Gaza are economic basket-cases. They're crowded, have huge levels of unemployment, minimal services, mostly temporary housing and a lot of civil unrest.

Egypt and Jordan can't even deal effectively with the Palestinian population they already have and they have enough problems with internal extremists as it is. Rebuilding these areas and integrating them into the wider Egyptian/Jordanian economy would be difficult enough. Doing it while the government is mostly worrying about holding the Muslim Brotherhood, revitalised by Hamas, down would be almost impossible.

John Bolton was pushing this line a few weeks back. He argued for the US to fund the transition, but he knows and we know that there's no way the US can just find the money and there's also no way that the logical thing - using Israel's defence money for this - would be politically feasible.

It's an attractive idea, but Egypt and Jordan really don't want these areas, and we don't have a big enough bribe to change their minds.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
It seems to me that this calculus could change in a heartbeat (4.00 / 2)
The only thing holding back a tidal wave of international pressure on Israel is the United States. Without us, Israel's calculus becomes completely different.

At some point, a U.S. administration could come along and simply say to Israel: enough is enough. We are not going to continue to serve as a bulwark for you against the rest of the world while you commit war crimes. Israel would then become almost completely isolated. Who's going to protect them - Australia?

Some people might see this as unrealistic but I'm not so sure. It's not written in stone anywhere that the U.S. has to defend Israel's actions at all costs. That policy didn't really take shape until the Reagan administration; before that, Israel was just another country. It can go back to being just another country, as soon as someone takes office who for whatever reasons breaks out of this ridiculous spell that so many of our elected officials seem to be under, whereby Israel can do no wrong. (It was sickening to watch Chuck Schumer and David Paterson cheering on Israel's war crimes at a public rally in New York.) Given that there is very little pressure from the public one way or the other on this issue, I expect this to happen before too long.

It would be great if this person will be Barack Obama, but for all the obvious reasons I am not hopeful.  

If there's a long stall by Israel and Palestine against a two-state solution, (0.00 / 0)
and then a period when Israel accepts two states but Palestine does not, and then an agreement on and a slow movement toward a one-state solution, with all the predictable violence and bad feeling continuing all along, then who among Israel will actually be there to live in the one state?

My hunch is that the Labor Party, more wealthy, more Ashkenazim, more secular Jews will leave.  Slowly, over two generations, although accelerating toward the end.  And who will remain will be the orthodox and ultra-orthodox.  Living among the Palestinians, in an economy that may or may not be prosperous.

This could be peaceful.  It would look like a peaceful version of Lebanon, I guess.  In fact I think a merger with Lebanon to produce a multipolar rather than a binary state would be wise, albeit very unlikely.

But I'm not sure that who of Israel will remain will be the Israelis that Americans and Europeans feel they recognize.  It may be a much more religiously-minded and communally self-defined bunch than they are now.  And what is now seen in the U.S. as an Us vs Them conflict may begin to look more like a Them vs Them conflict.  Because the Israelis who actually remind us of us have come here.

I'm not saying it's the most likely outcome, but I do think it's a possible outcome.  If the composition of who Israel is changes throughout this long process, then lots of other factors will start to change with it.

The Future Of Israel | 49 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox