The White House is hinting broadly that it is considering imposing a peace settlement on Israel and the Palestinians. Three elements of the plan the United States is to push are well known (no refugee return, a divided Jerusalem, and redrawn 1967 borders), but the fourth is rarely discussed in public: namely, that the Palestinian state be a disarmed state and that US or NATO troops be stationed along the Jordan River -- to ensure that Palestine will not turn into a Hamas-stan, a terrorist state.
I suggest that this fourth condition is a dangerous trap, despite the fact that such troops played a very salutary role in the DMZ in Korea and -- during the Cold War -- in Germany. At least it should be publicly aired and explored, so all the parties involved will be clear where this particular peace move is headed.
The fourth condition is most clearly laid out by two former national security advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, who participated in a recent small group meeting in the Obama White House, to discuss the peace move under consideration. They spelled it out in America and the World, a book composed of interviews conducted by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.
In the book, both national security advisers agreed that "They [Israel and the Palestinians] need a heavier hand by the United States than we have traditionally practiced." However, both recognize that Israel has a legitimate concern that if a Palestinian state is established, Iran and Syria will rush to load it with weapons and armies of Jihadists, or that Hamas will extend its policy of seeking to destroy the state of Israel to the West Bank. Brzezinski suggests "an American line along the Jordan River," and Scowcroft favors putting a "NATO peacekeeping force" on the West Bank.
Most recently, the rarely-discussed demilitarized Palestine was granted a few lines in a Washington Post op-ed by Brzezinski and Stephen Solarz. In a summary of the proposed peace plan, they mention "a demilitarized Palestinian state with U.S. or NATO troops along the Jordan River to provide Israel greater security." (The fact that this would include Israeli control of the Palestinian airports may be too hot to even be mentioned).
How can I count the ways the fourth condition is a dangerous trap? 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 act of Congress or an order by a future American president -- or the current one.
Abba Eban once compared a United Nations force stationed on the Israeli-Egyptian border, which was removed just before Nasser 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 terrorist bombs and rocket attacks in those parts. There is no reason to hold that they would do better in the West Bank. Third, there are very few precedents for states that are demilitarized 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, 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, whatever it says on some parchment or treaty.
A strong case for a two-state solution has been made, but it better be based on the Palestinians developing their own effective forces and an Israeli presence on the Jordan River. Neither can rely on the United States, beleaguered as it is, or conflict- and casualty-averse NATO to show the staying power for peacekeeping which neither mustered in Kosovo, Bosnia, or Haiti, and which they have never provided in Sudan and the Congo.
Above all, unless all involved candidly discuss this rather unique conception of the Palestinian state -- and the reasons they favor such a setup -- the likelihood that it will be accepted by the Palestinians, and the much of the world, is less than nil.
Follow Amitai Etzioni on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AmitaiEtzioni
The Israelis are on an ideological mission from God in thier belief. What they are doing is sanctioned by God in thier belief.
I think honeslty, peace with Israel needs to stop being a condition of the Palistinian independant state. The Palistinians should prepare, on thier own, thier institutions, and inferstructure, and patition the UN, on thier own for independance.
Part of the problem with the occupation is, Israel is using the laws regarding an 'occuping force' to displace the Arab population for 'military purposes'. Since the occupation never ends, the Arabs who lived thier can seemingly never return.
It is time for the rest of the world to focus on Palistine, regardless of the Israelis. Nevermind the rhetoric and propagnada of the blind. Those who want peace, safety and security for both the Israelis, and the Palistinians, and a solution that both of them can live with, and abide by should ignore the lemmings.
For some...I might call you to the concept of Sumud. If you know what that means, we should all practice it, even in the comments in this page.
But the first moment any Palestinian citizen attacks Israel - meaning even a "terrorist" rocket attack from Hamas or any other group, Israel should take that as an act of war by the independent state of Palestine and actually go to proper war against them, instead of the restrained in-and-out skirmishes that have been taking place for the past 35 years.
There is no such thing as war on even terms, you go to war with the army and equipment you have. Why should Israel have to hold back in winning the war and defeating their enemy, just because their enemy is stupid and fights their battles by send out children with stones to attack tanks.
History has proven that there are only brief periods of peace, which usually result from one group fighting and dominating all other groups, until some time passes and another group invades and takes over. It's an endless cycle. Let them fight their own fight.
may I ask what the rationale for this is?
Is the rationale clear yet? Or, should I go on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative
But don't you think that coming to an honest accommodation with your neighbors so that they accept you, might be a better way to go than taking a stance as an armed and hostile presence in the area, in a desperate attempt to obtain permanence?
Or Palestinian troops and Israeli troops standing back to back? Facing into and containing those extremists amongst their own people.
More to the point, Once a deal is in place, and borders set, I don't think an Army will be needed to keep civilian Jews from attacking across the border, regardless of how extreme they may be. Today you don't have Jewish individuals (extremists or not) attacking Arabs in the Sinai, Gaza, or Lebanon.
Why don't you substantiate that?
In fact, Salam Fayyad has stated his position:
"Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel,"
"Fayyad: Jews can be equal citizens in Palestinian state"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097932.html
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )
General Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces
"In June l967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982)
Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfolio
But, mor to the point, bluster is part of the Middle East approach to things.
For example:
13 October 1960,
“We do not deny that we want war. We want war; this is our right. The return of Palestine is impossible without war.†-- Nassar at the UN
March 8th 1965:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood" - President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser
Feb 22nd 1967:
“it is the duty of all of us now to move from defensive positions to offensive positions and enter the battle to liberate the usurped land…Everyone must face the test and enter the battle to the end.†- President Attassi of Syria
May 17th 1967:
“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel†- Cairo Radio
May 26th 1967:
"Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel†- Gamal Abdel Nasser
May 28th 1967:
"“We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel.…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948â€. - Gamel Abdel Nasser"
May 30th 1967:
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations." - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech
If Israel is evacuating land to make room of a Palestinian-Arab nation, why would they be any threat to a fledgling Palestine? I learned something about negotiating a long time ago, insist on things you really need. Give up the impractical and/or unnecessary. Problem solved.
1) A well trained 'national guard' with light weaponry. Any suggestion that heavy weapons are needed is nonsensical in view of the fact that the object is to protect, not destroy themselves.
2) They need something they don't seem to want. Coherent, factual information. If I believed half the bulljive being circulated as factual, I might agree with the radical adversaries of Israel.
Truth is freedom. Truth is also affluence. Truth is sustainable and provides dividends.
All this time they have been fighting Jews when they should have been fighting the 'paralell dimention' which imprisons them. The dimention of pretend time-travel, which is still their mortal adversary to this very moment.
So.. looks like the solution will evolve naturally, with a little more time. (The CIA says by about 2020)
"that sounds like classic anti-semitic hate speech. "
You quote it as though it is inevitable - it is not - and as though Iranian and Syrian backed miltancy has no cause. It has a cause: the illegal occupation and decades long brutalisation of the Palestinian people, because Israel wants their land.
"Clinton made Israel bend over backwards"
Very funny. Please - name ONE concession Israel made.
". israel should refuse to negotiate unless hezbollah agrees to withdraw from southern lebanon"
Such arrogance! You seem to be unaware that Lebanon is a sovereign nation. How about Israel stop the continuous illegal intrusions into Lebanese airspace?
What is very troubling to me is the acceptance of inflammatory debate on this subject that sounds like classic anti-semitic hate speech.
Anyone who reads any foreign policy politics on the internet can see it, not the least in the 'comment' sections. Nothing is being said to calm, address, or diffuse those fears, except to say they're paranoid, or manipulative and imaginary.
Which leads me to have a profound loss of trust.
Saddam used to be our "friend and ally," remember?
But I noticed you didn't point out the preponderance of anti-Muslim sentiment on these threads as well and only discussion that you thought might be anti-Semitic upset you. Which indicates you're not any less vehement or biased than anyone else on these comment boards.
Israel will NOT like extranational troops.. watching...
That's the bulk of where Palestine went.
Starting with over 200 villages demolished.
Regardless of how one might feel about another country's morals or culture, even their politics, because they are their own sovereign nation, they have a right to them and they have a right to having the truth published about them as well as the right to having their culture respected and represented in the true light of day instead of being labeled in prejudicial terms.
Hamas was democratically elected, yes.
Hamas is also a terrorist organization. They proudly, loudly took public credit for successfully committing hundreds of terrorist attacks over many years.
Of course, In Israel, everyone is in the army.