A Disarmed Palestinian State?
One can disagree with everything the new Israeli prime minster says and does and still admit that he raised an important question during his recent visit to the White House. Benjamin Netanyahu stated "I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel." The same issue was addressed by two leading foreign policy mavens not suspected of a pro-Israeli bias, to put it mildly, namely Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft. Both favor pushing a two state solution on Israel, as they see it as the way to turn around the Middle East (which they define as including Afghanistan and Pakistan). Three elements of the plan the US is to push are well known (no refugee return, a divided Jerusalem, and redrawn 1967 borders), but the fourth is much less often explored. Namely that the Palestinian state be disarmed and that US or NATO troops be stationed along the Jordan river. They pointed to this condition in a new book America and the World, composed of interviews with Brzezinski and Scowcroft, conducted by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. In the book both authors agree that "they [Israel and the Palestinians] need a heavier hand by the United States than we have traditionally practiced" (87). Furthermore, Brzezinski suggests "an American line along the Jordan river" and Scowcroft favors putting a "NATO peace keeping force" on the West Bank. That is, they do not want the Palestinians to have what most people consider a true state, one that is free to arm itself.
There are several problems in this approach. First of all, while the first three conditions are almost impossible to reverse once in place, the fourth one can be changed by a simple order from Congress or future American president, or even the current one. Aba Evan once compared a UN force stationed on the Israeli-Egyptian border, which was removed just before Nasar attacked Israel, to an umbrella that is folded when it rains. The new umbrella is not much more reliable.
Second, the American troops in Iraq and the NATO ones in Afghanistan are unable to stop terrorists' bombs and rocket attacks in these parts. There is no reason to hold that they would do better in the West Bank.
Third, there are very few precedents for demilitarized states--by force. A two state solution means to practically everyone involved, except a few foreign policy mavens, two sovereign states. A sovereign state is free to import all the arms and troops it wants. One second after the Palestinian state is declared, many in the Arab world, in Iran, and surely in Europe, not to mention Russia and China, will hold that "obviously" the new free state cannot be prevented from arming itself. And if this not allowed, any therapeutic effect the Palestinian state could have would have on the Middle East is about the same as the end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza: Either too small to measure or a negative one.
A strong case for a two state solution has been made, but it better be based on the Palestinians developing their own effective peacekeeping troops and, arguably, on an Israeli presence on the Jordan river. Neither can rely on the United States, beleaguered as it is, or on the conflicted and casualties averse NATO to show a staying power for peacekeeping that neither has mustered in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Haiti, and which they never provided in Sudan and the Congo.
In short, the Palestinians are surely entitled to govern themselves. However, if the West Bank is not to be turned into one giant terrorist base, part of the solution will have to be a credible way to ensure that the two states will live in "security and peace" with each other. It is a line practically all those who advocate the two state solution repeat--but rarely detail in full.
__________________
**I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this as essential for a civilized dialogue.
Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University. For more discussion, see Security First (Yale 2007). For more, go here: http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html. He can be reached at icps@gwu.edu
A disarmed Palestinian state and a nuclear-armed Israel with upwards of 50-100 nuclear warheads who refuses any inspection by the IAEA!
I just know your joshing us! Or did I miss who is duty comedian?
May 26, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here was a real howler: "A strong case for a two state solution has been made, but it better be based on the Palestinians developing their own effective peacekeeping troops and, arguably, on an Israeli presence on the Jordan river."
Yes, the Palestinians need the Israelis in the Jordan River Valley to defend them from the Jordanians. (Giggle....slowly building to full-throated laughter.)
Never underestimate the amount of Hashish a Zionist needs to smoke to get through their miserable lives.
May 26, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me parse out some of the useless crap and filter the Netanyahu quote through the valiometer:
...that would qualify Palestine as a state.
Bang! No solution, no problem. See you next year! And the one after that... And the one after that... And the one after that... And the one after that... And the...
May 26, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds about right, substantially.
I believe, however, that the policy in question can be made to seem more plausible and attractive to persons hard of nose and steel-trapped of mind if it is phrased a bit less ... , well, less ‘empathetically’. (If you know what I mean?)
Thus spoke M. le général du Ya‘alôn, holder of the somewhat mysteriously named portfolio of "Strategic Affairs" in the Tel Avîv government.
Happy days.
May 27, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is, of course, no way to absolutely "ensure that two states will live in 'security and peace' with each other", not India-Pakistan, not Armenia-Azirbeizan, not Iran-Iraq, not Russia-China, and not Israel-Palestine. A reasonable measuring rod, by contrast, would be one gauging the degree to which policies make it more or less likely that states will fail to live in peace. Clearly the Israeli policy of occupation, oppression and humiliation has failed to prevent Palestine from being a base for terrorism. The question is, how much worse might it get if Palestine had its own state? There are certainly examples of states without armies: Costa Rica for one. The key is self-determination for the people, not total freedom to ignore the desires of the rest of the world.
May 26, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm impressed with this post, and I think much of the problem with an international force is well described here. It also starts to explain why Israel is so skeptical of any "internationalization" of the overall conflict. At the end of the day, when it comes to Israel's existential security, the question of who can Israel trust when push comes to shove is of paramount importance. The UN and NATO's record here is unimpressive.
But there is one quibble, and that is when Prof. Etzioni says:
This doesn't ring true. Surely any demilitarization will be part of an exhaustively worked out treaty whose basic terms will be understood by the international community. No the issue is not that the nascent Palestinian state will immediately rearm in violation of any treaty. It's that the Palestinian state couldn't be trusted not to rearm if there was a crisis. Even more problematic, they couldn't be trusted, once Israel pulled out, not to turn a blind eye to terrorists smuggling weapons in, the way Egypt turns a blind eye to terrorist smuggling weapons into Gaza. This is why the presence in the Jordan Valley is so important to Israel in any future deal. This is Israel's security policy that weapons won't get in, even if the Palestinian government has the best of intentions, which they don't. Over time, should the situation stabilize the way everyone hopes, then perhaps Israel can scale back that presence to just a token force, and then perhaps no force. There would probably be an unspoken agreement about Palestinian arms, the way Egypt has an unspoken agreement not to send arms into Sinai.
Sorry if this doesn't meet the approval of the anti-Israel crowd, but it's the only thing that will work.
May 26, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 26, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah the burden of the elite white men trying to come up with plans to govern the distant dark skinned ones. Brzezinski should stop playing chess.
May 26, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
A true two-state solution must involve parity -- neither state can be allowed to dominate the other, either militarily or economically. Anything else and what we really have is just a neo-colonial relationship dressed up in fancy clothes.
Now it's true that after sixty years of brutal oppression, Israel has created such a store of hatred and hostility that building trust with the Palestinians is going to be a tremendous task. But if Zionists like Mr. Etzioni don't think it is possible to build a relationship of equals, then perhaps it's time to admit to ourselves that maybe planting a European colony in the heart of the Arab world wasn't such a good idea in the first place.
May 26, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, someone please tell Prof. Etzioni that the occupation of Gaza never ended. Israel just moved the prison guards outside the walls.
May 26, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't blame the Israelis for being suspicious of the notion of international forces. Even though the UN is doing a credible job watching the Golan and along the Blue Line, the UNIFIL forces still insist on cataloguing and reporting on the Israeli violations of 1701 and various international laws despite the fact that everyone knows that the Zionist entity is not bound to observe such fripperies.
It would be an impossible task to ensure that rules of engagement involving force would be applied to Arabs only.
What's so funny is that the impotent battallions of WB Palestinian gendarmerie being so lovingly assembled by the obsequious General Dayton are turning out to be a model of what Israel wants for the armed forces of all of it's neighbors and even that's too booscary for witless Israelis and their cowardly American "supporters".
Even though the exquisitely vetted youngsters who are allowed to be trained by US, the Jordanians and the IDF only attack their fellow Palestinians, that's still not enough for the poor widdle things who fear them.
Perhaps only an army of Palestinian castratos would satisfy the needs of the plucky little country that lights our way.
May 26, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Etzioni, you're a fraud. You present yourself as someone examining the practical angles and looking for a rational solution. But what you are really doing is carrying water for the extremist, racist Israeli government. What you offer is just another bigoted argument for an Israeli Bantustania on the West Bank. You throw out every flimsy argument you can think of for why the Palestinians and the international community can't succeed in building a Palestinian state, why neither Americans nor any other country can be trusted to protect the Jews from a tiny little Arab startup country, and then slyly suggest that maybe the Israelis will have to have forces along the Jordan River - yet more territory that Israel doesn't own by the way - so that Israel and its military can have the State of Palestine surrounded on all sides.
Oh, and did I say "state"? Apparently it's only going to be some sort of entity that a cretin like Netanyahu is willing to describe, perversely, as "self-governing". Face it, with Israel surrounding the entire circumference of this Palestinian entity, and with the entity denied real sovereignty and powers of self-government, then all we are talking about is a Palestinian homeland within an Israeli domain.
While Palestinians have suffered far more damage at the hands of Israel over the years than Israel has suffered from Palestinians, you evince not the slightest concern about the future security of a Palestinian state faced with a hostile and militarily potent enemy next door, and enemy with nuclear weapons. And yet the fact that some Palestinian might set off a car bomb or launch an occasional rocket into Israel is enough to justify the permanent treatment of Palestinians as caged animals by their Israeli jailers.
You are a racist, bigoted defender of apartheid and oppression. How dare you propose this sort of outcome?
May 26, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This passes for "elite."
See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088366.html
May 27, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Etzioni is dreaming the typical Israeli dream. Israel's concerns are all that count. After the last 42 years do you really think the Palestinians will let Israel control it's borders. It means the Palestinians are going to have to beg for cement, candy and anything else they want. This is total BS.
Even after all the wars Israel has fought with Egypt and Jordan and the thousands of Jews those countries killed, I did not hear one word about the need for Israel to control those countries border.
I can understand an agreement with Israel that does not allow the import of heavy weapons(tanks, artillary, fighter jets and bombers, large bore mortars etc. However, to allow Israel to continue to abuse and dominate Palestinians by controlling their borders should not be allowed.
May 26, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
need for Israel to control those countries border
Patience.
You can only steal so much land and (dispossess the inhabitants) at a time.
What's the old saying "Today Jerusalem, Tomorrow Amman?"
May 27, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amitai is a veteran of the forces that fought in 1948 and belonged to a terrorist outfit known as Palmach. In a recent review of Pappe's book I came across this:
Two weeks later the Palmach went into the Hawassa neighborhood of Haifa, where around 5,000 of the poorest Arabs lived in dismal conditions. Huts and the local school were blown up, causing the people to flee. Pappe regards this as the official beginning of the ethnic cleansing operation in urban Palestine.
It really does sound like he could have been involved in the beginning of this problem. I have a few questions of Amitai: Were you personally involved in destroying Arab homes and driving them out of the country? If so, have you ever apologized to a Palestinian refugee for what you did? If not, why should anyone listen to you today on what you happen to believe is a just two-state solution?
May 26, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
good info in deconstructing mr. etzioni. now go "home".
May 27, 2009 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another long windy expostulation about all the ramifications.
The longer an agreement is put off, the more opportunity there is to bulldoze people off their land and build settlements.
Long complex arguments about making peace serve the purpose of building settlements ... the longer we spend pulling our beards and complexificating up the issue, the more settlements are built.
It is a disingenuous and boring stream of hot air that we endure. It is b******t. It is a dangerous waste of time.
Draw a border, make a deal, and hurry up, please. Do it today. Stop this nonsense 'discussion'. Shut up, please, meanwhile.
May 26, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's just me, but I see this post as fairly reasonable. I have never been a fan of deploying troops (UN or otherwise) to enforce the two-state solution.
I must, however, take issues with both sides of the debate here.
First, why would the Palestinian state "obviously" need an armed military? Let's just take that off the table to begin with. If Israel decides to violate the treaty, the Palestinians have plenty of friends in the neighborhood.
Second, I've not heard many Israelis calling to "wipe the Arab world off the map." So Israel being armed above and beyond those who say that about them is not totally unreasonable.
Of course any resolution to this argument would lead to another argument, and on and on and on. So while it pains me to say this, the US may have to get to a point where it says "you guys come together and work it out, or we're done with the two of you."
Without that option on the table, round and round we go.
May 26, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, because the right to self-defense is one of the rights of Sovereign States. If the Palestinian State cannot at least make an attempt at defending itself, then it is not sovereign, but merely a protectorate of its neighbors.
Second, consider that you have now a second generation of Palestinians reaching adulthood who have never known any existence other than at the point of an Israeli gun. So, why should they tolerate the presence of what they perceive as a belligerent neighbor intent on oppression and tyranny, without the right of any free men and women to resist such oppression?
Israel's already losing their internal demographic battle. It's really in their best interests to make a legitimate attempt at peaceful co-existence, rather than expanding illegal land grabs and using defending those illegal settlements as justification for invasion and oppression.
The reasons they give for their belligerence reveal the same reactive mindset that typified Bush/Cheney: fear. They are allowing their fears to blind them to legitimate opportunities, and have been since Rabin died. In many ways, where Israel is concerned, the terrorists have won: the policymakers are well and truly terrorized, and are reacting in generally predictable ways. That predictability gives their opponents the ability to manipulate them, and is a dangerous weakness. They are scared, and they will continue to behave like frightened children until they decide to stop letting themselves be made to be afraid.
May 26, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second, I've not heard many Israelis calling to "wipe the Arab world off the map."
Israelis generally don't "call for" wiping Palestine off the map. They just go ahead and do it, inexorably. Here is one recent example:
http://www.alarabiya.net/save_print.php?print=1&cont_id=73350&lang=en.
But the process has been going on for 60 years.
Of course, some Israelis do blatantly call for wiping Palestine, and Palestinians, off the map:
http://samsonblinded.org/
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/152270
May 26, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
staleync wrote, "First, why would the Palestinian state "obviously" need an armed military?"
Because of the belligerent statements of Israel's leaders?
Because of the racist attitudes of Israel's citizens?
Because of the violent behavior of Israel's army?
(By the way, were you paying any attention to what went on in Gaza this past winter, or were you perhaps vacationing?)
May 26, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I was not on vacation. And no, I do not turn a blind eye to Israel's transgressions. If you had taken the time to read my entire response you would notice that I called for cutting off foreign aid to Israel if they did not accept a reasonable peace agreement.
I'm not taking sides here. There is plenty of blame to go around, on both sides. My call is for the redneck mantra: get along or get it on.
At least then sides can be taken.
May 27, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not every state has a functioning military. Costa Rica and Islandia made it official, Georgia seems to be in that class too.
However, it would be highly destabilizing to have Israel control the borders of West Bank. As it is, Israeli government is unable to follow the worst instict and ratchet both requirements and punishments. Is there another state that denies chickpeas and lentils to the opponents, paper, kitchen utensils, hearing aids etc. etc.? And then, surprise! "therapeutic effect [...] of the Israeli occupation of Gaza" is "too small to measure"!
Palestinians would be insane to agree on such an arrangement.
May 27, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO this entire thread could be summed-up in the statement already made above:
perhaps it's time to admit to ourselves that maybe planting a European colony in the heart of the Arab world wasn't such a good idea in the first place.
All the plethora of exotic ideas and oh-so-clever suggestions from dyed-in-the-shatnas zionists, is just - as ever since 1948 - commentary.
It has been a Muslim-settled country continuously for well over a thousand years and just because of a politically expedient resolution taken by a tiny united nations assembly which was totally non-representative - doesn't make it right, morally, politically or any other which way. Wake up! The situation is endemically unstable and will always be rejected just as is a foreign liver or heart transplant. Might last a year, 60 or 70 years - but it will always require medicine - in this case, killing, to enable it to extend its stay.
Finally, all the Europeans will reluctantly pack-up and go home, and the others from North Africa, Iran, Russia and Ethiopia will just have to go with. As an experiment, it was interesting maybe but carried out totally without due diligence.
May 27, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, all the Europeans will reluctantly pack-up and go home, and the others from North Africa, Iran, Russia and Ethiopia will just have to go with.
Not so simple. Most rational Europeans will leave, but those that do not are entranced with Masada precedent. Or they are waiting for the red heifer which will define that moment when Israelis will dismantle the Dome on the Rock so they can rebuild the third temple. Not to mention 500,000 west bank settlers waiting for the opportunity to purge Judea and Samaria of it Amaleks. And they will be armed with 200 nuclear weapons.
May 27, 2009 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly the point. But nobody's listening. We're a moment or two in time from when those weapons of mass destruction in the desert are deployed against a hostile world and we will all be contaminated and doomed. In Europe and around the world.
Sounds like alarmist rubbish? Think carefully and evaluate the situation. Israel becomes more isolated every passing day. They are estimated to possess either the 4th or 5th most powerful deadly nuclear weapons store on the planet. They have been sat in the middle of hostile indigenous populations that have been the subject of massive aggression and war crimes, at least over the last decade.
What does any intelligent person believe that those WMD are there for .... for what exactly? For decoration?
And Jollyroger is correct. But the world sleepwalks on and warnings such as this are dismissed as nonsense ...
I could cry for my children - but there is little now that can reverse the inevitable outcome.
May 27, 2009 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
if you go to a play about hot passions and on the wall you see a gun prominently displayed. you kinda guess that at some point the gun will be used.
May 27, 2009 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
200 nuclear weapons
"And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword."
(And we worry about North Korea and their little popgun...)
May 27, 2009 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that all the rabid loathers of the State of Israel have once again had their little hatefest against anything even remotely detracting from the Hate and Mock the Jewish State for everything and anything status quo on these pages (yawn), might I be so bold as to refer to a little primary source material to place this "debate" into just a trifing bit of context? J Street for one, which promotes a peaceful two-state solution along the lines of the Clinton Parameters of 2000-01, refers to those Parameters on its serious and fine website:
http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm
The extent of the militirization of a future Palestinian state is addressed in the Parameters, with Clinton setting forth the positions of both parties as of December 2000, as follows:
"I understand that the Israeli position is that Palestine should be defined as a "demilitarized state" while the Palestinian side proposes "a state with limited arms." As a compromise, I suggest calling it a "non-militarized state."
This will be consistent with the fact that in addition to a strong Palestinian security forces. Palestine will have an international force for border security and deterrent purposes [sic]."
Notably, while the parties were not in accord on the scope and extent of militirization of the future Palestinian state, even the Palestinian negotiators at the time were calling for a "state with imited arms" back then.
Yes, groups such as J Street, the Israel Policy Forum and Americans for Peace Now, and the Palestinian negotiators themselves call for limitations on future Palestinian defense forces. But here at the Cafe, the knee jerk and fancy penned haters of all things Israel take a harder position. Oh, it's sooooo difficult being an armchair warrior in America. How do they do it? How tough they are; indeed some might see an analogy between them and the Dick Cheney four deferrment specials of the world, and he's really tough too, ain't he?
But forgive me. Please return to the trashing of the integrity of the contributor for addressing an issue that everyone who has seriously engaged in these discussions considers to be a serious one.
By the way, how does the Geneva initiative address Palestinian militarization? Ooops sorry, couldn't resist.
May 27, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the sentiment*, but it seems that Mr. Etzioni is arguing against these solutions and in favour of continued Israeli control of the border?
* Sort of understand; I would posit that most of those arguing from the left comprehend Israel as just another nation-state among others; conversely, it is my impression that most of those always on Israel's side (in- and outside the country) have a really hard time distinguishing it from the Jewish ethnicity and religion. Perhaps my impressions are wrong, but you sure are not helping correct them sometimes.
May 27, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
...the left comprehend Israel as just another nation-state among others; conversely, it is my impression that most of those always on Israel's side (in- and outside the country) have a really hard time distinguishing it from the Jewish ethnicity and religion.
bingo
May 27, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
i might also add that those on the right have a hard time distinguishing between being offended and anti-semitism.
May 27, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting assessment. My post addressese militerization, and perhaps, as Mr. Ledell suggests below, should have focused more on border control, which of course is a separate issue and is addressed separately in the Clinton Parameters I refer to. I didn't make any refrences to Jewish ethnicity and religion. However, I did just finish reading Bernard Avishai's Hebrew Republic, which addresses the inherent and fundamental tension between the Jewish State and democracy, and I highly recommend it.
May 27, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This reply was meant for Karl the Marxist.
May 27, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to, emphasis mine:
That was more of a sidenote, though.
Are we in agreement that Mr. Etzioni's solution is not at all in line with what you were describing, or am I somehow misunderstanding his proposition? In my view, while problematic in some ways, an international border force is by far the more tenable option between it and Israeli-controlled borders.
May 27, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I agree with that, i.e. I think that an international force, all things equal, would be preferable to an Israeli force to patrol borders.
May 27, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - As I read the comments, I see much more commentary on who controls the borders than on de-militarization. For example, in my rant, I specifically said no heavy weapons. It's only heavy weapons that are a threat to Israel.
The Clinton parametes called for an International force layered between Israel and Palestine - not between Palestine and the outside world. Do you understand there will be NO PEACE if Israel continues to control every aspect of Palestinian life by controlling everything and everyone that comes in or out of Palestine?
I understand your position that the constant criticism of Israel feeds the natural Israeli paranoia and thus leads to Israel to withdraw into its own protective shell to their own detriment. However, like the prophets of old, it may be that Jews need to hear the loud voice of change (plus a 2x4 across the side of the head)in order to do the intelligent thing before it's too late.
Remember, what some TPM commentators are hearing from Israel these days are voices in the government stating no Nabka(3 years in prison) no to saying Israel is not a Jewish state (filed today) no to a settlement freeze, loyalty oaths, Moaz Esther already rebuilt for the 4th time. Is there no end to this madness?
May 27, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You correctly point out the distinction between militarization and border control, although I'm sure you would agree that the two issues intersect materially, e.g. nobody who is seriously proposing a two-state solution presumes that an independent Palestine will be permitted to have a potential to reach the Tel Aviv airport with rockets. As to your point about the need to reduce Israeli control over Palestinian affairs, I take no issue with you and I'm not sure where the question comes from. Again, my response, my initial response were directed to the harsh, indeed in some cases the completely unwarranted but unfortunately typical attacks on this contributor. I'm sure you agree: (a) he raises a serious issue; and (b) he has the right to be heard and treated with respect.
May 27, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are not talking about a "state", we are talking about the mother of all refugee camps, a glorified concentration camp.
May 27, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he has the right to be heard and he is being heard but he has no right to be treated with respect, that is something he must earn. What I hear is an Israeli apologist and dissimulator that deserves to be treated harshly. The fact that he served in a terrorist organization in his youth and continues to promote the same goals today with different tactics, without regrets or apologies for his earlier actions, legitimately makes him even more of a target for our scorn.
May 27, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
nobody who is seriously proposing a two-state solution presumes that an independent Palestine will be permitted to have a potential to reach the Tel Aviv airport with rockets.
Nobody who is seriously proposing a two-state solution is serious!
(Sorry Bruce, I couldn't resist that one.)
More seriously, though, with Palestine only 10 miles from Tel Aviv, how would it be possible to prevent the Palestinian state from having the capability of launching rockets against Tel Aviv unless the Palestinian state's military powers were reduced to almost nil? This is just another one of those thorny issues, I think, that makes the two-state solution so unworkable. If you reduce the Palestinian state's powers to the point where Israel is comfortable with them, you end up with a Palestinian Bantustan. And a Bantustan isn't a long-term solution, because the Palestinians won't (and shouldn't be) happy with it and will therefore continue to resist. The occupation will simply restart once the Palestinian population in their new Bantustan realizes "they was robbed" and gets restive. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I just don't see how this two-state solution can ever be pulled off.
May 29, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Purple:
I have promised Bar K that I will review Avishai's book, the Hebrew Republic. It's a must for folks like you and, dare I say me. I think it should be required reading for anyone who frequents these pages frankly (and believe me it is hardly kind to Israel and that is an understatement) We come from many different places on these issues, but Avishai, whom I find personally to be an arrogant snotnose because he has ignored every question I have ever posed to him, has nonetheless thought through the conundrums we discuss ad nauseum, and addresses them head on. It is a Hebrew republic that embraces Jewish and Palestinian roots. It is a place where the actual borders begin to become irrelevant, where globalization guides an integrated Israel, Palestine and Jordan. It is a place where the Hebrew (not Jewish) culture consisting Israeli Jews and Palestinians breaks through. It's a dream I think--although not to Avishai who sees a dominant but silent "center" in both the Israeli and Palestinian camps--but perhaps so too is everything else we squabble about.
May 29, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I will pick the Avishai's book up, Bruce, thanks to your recommendation. I agree about him being something of an arrogant snotnose . . . but he is clearly damn smart and so I keep reading him anyway. (And I guess in fairness he has responded to one or two of my questions.)
Hope you enjoy your weekend.
May 29, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does it address Israeli militarization?
Couldn't resist.
May 27, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble with the word "state" --as state that the Palestinian deserve--is that it makes everyone assume that it is a sovereign one. You can say that it has to hop on one foot--be demilitarized--but this will not hold, as most everyone will still assume that once grated statehood , it can do what it pleases. Maybe we need a new word. Unlimited self-governance, as Stage I on the road to peace?
June 1, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Israel and to the Jewish state for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for some.
May 27, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course that's your response. Attack my loyalty to country just like all the haters do on the extreme right and the extreme left. But next time you're commenting on an MJ Rosenberg thread, ask him what his organization's position is on the militarization of the free and independent Palestinian State he and I share a hope for. Then ask yourself how relevant you really are. But, of course, when in doubt, attack this American for pledging allegiance to a foreign power. Oh and bigshot, since you're copying the maggot right-wingers of the world by anonymously and cowardly attacking this American's patriotism, you may as well know that this American's name is. . .
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
May 27, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
i will salute, applaud, and support israel only when it changes its orientation away from its current apartheid trajectory and starts to live by the jewish values of tikkun olam.
until then i will criticize, poke fun, and push the dual-loyalty button just as there are those who so easily push the anti-semitic button.
for me, it is not a right or left issue. it is a right and wrong issue. keeping people in a cage on a deliberate starvation diet is wrong. appropriating water so that you can have a swimming pool while the "other" makes do with water rationing is wrong. it is not only wrong. it is immoral.
May 27, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Palestinians are nuts if they sign for this, American patrolled concentration camp, Bantustan. Most Palestinian intellectuals are now in favor of the one state solution.
May 27, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who actually has Israeli-Palestinian and Palestinian relatives (by marriage), I can tell you that the one advantage of the one-state solution is that it's harder for the IDF to drop bombs on its own cities.
However, the Zionists will commit genocide before they permit the One State Solution. That is why I support Two States. I'd rather have living relatives. Moreover, considering how odious the political culture is in Israel, the Palestinians need the opportunity to build their own society without Jewish "superivision."
May 27, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel's position becomes more untenable by the day as it seeks to disarm all its neighbors while arming itself to the teeth -- all in violation of international law.
The US no longer has enough power to support this untenable situation nor should it want to. I would add that this American only reached these conclusions recently and only because of the actions of Israel itself. Unless Israel reorients itself, and quickly, towards international law and norms, the rest of the American public is destined to turn away from Israel in absolute disgust, just as the rest of the world is doing.
May 27, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, what ever happened to Phil Weiss?
May 27, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
When East Timor, Bosnia and Kosovo broke away from their parent countries there was a well ordered process of International peacekeepers present to establish order in these new countries.
I would suggest the same process be used with the fledgling Palestinian state. BUT, their mandate is to keep order not run the new country and not to decide trade and foreign policy. As with East Timor, Indonesia was NOT allowed to control all egress and ingress and Serbia was NOT allowed to do so for Bosnia or Kosovo. The same should be true of Palestine.
Negotiations on the substance and duration of the Palestinian demilitarization should be pursued but it is not a given anymore than it was for Kosovo. The KLA was transformed from a "terrorist" force into the Kosovo army serving along side NATO troops. Serbia objected, as will Israel, but statehood rightfully brings certain priviledges. But again, it is my hope that heavy weapons are prohibited for a generous period of time to make Israel more amenable to Palestinian statehood.
May 27, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have noticed over many threads, including this one, and many months, that pro-Israel commentators are extremely careful not to comment on Israel's secret nuclear arsenal, in any reference or opinion.
I surmise that this is either because their Hasbara brief instructs them to adopt a tight-lipped position or because they find themselves at a loss to defend the nuclear status quo. Can anyone enlighten me as to the correct reason?
May 27, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to know that some things never change...
May 27, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians and 125 for Gazans, the bank said. Increasingly, West Bank Palestinians must rely on water bought from the Israeli national water company, Mekorot.
In some areas of the West Bank, Palestinians are surviving on as little as 10 to 15 litres a person each day, which is at or below humanitarian disaster response levels recommended to avoid epidemics. In Gaza, where Palestinians rely on an aquifer that has become increasingly saline and polluted, the situation is worse. Only 5%-10% of the available water is clean enough to drink." LINK
May 28, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
" However, if the West Bank is not to be turned into one giant terrorist base, part of the solution will have to be a credible way to ensure that the two states will live in 'security and peace' with each other. It is a line practically all those who advocate the two state solution repeat--but rarely detail in full."
There is the state of the Jews and the state of the Palestinians, and there is the state of denial. Living together in peace and security requires living together. All these people who are for 'states' could care less about being welcome in your homeland. That's where peace and security come from, and that is all the more reason to end this sham of partition. You can't live together separately.
May 28, 2009 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very good post and, for the most part, interesting comments. I agree not arming the new state would go nowhere - its absurd and won't work - it can't work - its never worked (anyone remember the demilitarized Rhineland post WWI?).
I would wager, however, that now that the idea is out there we will hear it in spades from lunatics like Netanyahu - in other words: pushing for something that can never be as a way of paying lip service to a peace that they have no desire to see occur.
May 28, 2009 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
bingo
May 28, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink