"It's The Occupation Stupid"

Following the words and efforts of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Sharm el Sheikh, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ramallah one gets the feeling that she was on a hard-sell campaign trying to convince the majority of Israelis to accept the concept of the two-state solution. For now, Palestinians are more interested in the end of the decades-old occupation of their lands.

Secretary Clinton's pleading with Binyamin Netanyahu to adopt the international consensus on the two-state solution is misplaced. She should instead focus on the choices Israel has. Namely, share the land of Palestine/Israel with the Palestinians in two states or agree to share power among all the people living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

The two-state solution has been on the books for years. Palestinians have demanded an independent state alongside Israel since the 1970s, but this became official PLO policy within months after the relatively nonviolent first intifada began. The November 15, 1988 declaration of a Palestinian state alongside Israel replaced the PLO policy which called for a secular state on all of historic Palestine.

The two-state solution was adopted by the Arab League at its Beirut Summit in 2002 and following that was unanimously supported by the Organization of Islamic States, which includes states such as Iran, Indonesia, and Pakistan.

President George W. Bush gave the two-state solution public support most prominently in the last year of his second term when he promised that an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state would see the light before the end of his term.

Consecutive Israeli governments have given it mixed responses. The recent Olmert/Livni government gave lip service to the two-state solution even though exclusive Jewish settlement construction has continued in areas earmarked for the Palestinian state. An effort to depopulate East Jerusalem of its Palestinian inhabitants has not stopped since Israel occupied and then unilaterally annexed the Arab populated section of the city. The international community has never recognized this annexation. Clinton, questioned in Ramallah about Israel's policy of demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, noted that the practice is "unhelpful" and declared the United States would take it up with the Israelis.

The poll results that followed the assault on Gaza appeared to shift Israeli opinion to a more hawkish position contrasting sharply with the more dovish shift in the U.S.. Some expect that a Netanyahu government will be on a collision course with the Obama administration. Hence Clinton has been pleading with the right-wing Israeli leader to accept the two-state policy that even the pro-Israeli Bush-Cheney tandem adopted.

With the shift to the hawkish right in the recent Israeli elections, many Palestinians believe that the true nature of the Israeli ruling elite is coming into focus. Netanyahu, who has been tapped to form a coalition government, has publicly refused to accept the two-state solution.

As Israelis backtrack from the two-state solution, some Palestinians are arguing in favor of creating one state for all the people living in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

But the choices that should be made clear to Israel are not whether they should accept the two-state or one-state solution. Instead, Israeli leaders and the Israeli people must be made to understand that the key issue is the need to end the occupation. The international community has made this crystal clear since 1967. In the preamble of UN Security Council Resolution 242, the binding resolution stresses "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

Being wedded to the two-state solution, the U.S. has been forced to deal with the day-to-day actions of the Israeli army and government in the occupied territories. U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell set up office in Jerusalem with knowledgeable security and political staff whose job it will be to monitor the situation in the occupied territories. This is a positive development. But what is needed is more strategic. Instead of pleading with the Israelis to accept the two-state solution, the US should simply ask the Israelis to end their military control of Arab lands occupied in June 1967.

Such a strategy would require the international community to help Palestinians and Israelis in the transitional period. This might mean the introduction of international troops into the occupied territories in place of the Israeli army.

To carry out the strategy, the U.S. ought not beg the Israelis to accept this or that solution. Instead, the U.S., as the leader of the international community, must place a clear challenge to Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak, and all Israelis: set a date for the withdrawal of occupation forces and begin negotiating a responsible pullout. Two states or one is not the pressing issue. Rather, to paraphrase a presidential candidate who later became deeply involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, "It's the occupation, stupid."

Comments

[Justtellthetruth]

Great, great article. This is the ONLY solution.

I would go so far as to say that the US should adopt and FOLLOW THROUGH with the method that George Bush senior tried to implement, that is, withholding ALL aid to Israel until they comply with our wishes. This is PRECISELY what secretary Clinton threatened our great ally Pakistan with if they did not fall into line, so why in Gods name could we not monetarily entreat the Israelis to shut down the engine of middle eastern terrorism, the settlements and the Occupation that guard them and help them expand.

[alexa07]

Daoud, Thanks for a great post. The brutalities of the occupation are too clearly evident these days, making it somewhat difficult for the Israeli operatives & their American sympathizers. Everyone has a camera, it seems & easy access to any number of sources for broadcasting what Israeli soldiers are doing to Palestinian families, even comandeering their homes (60 Minutes) for lookouts; demolishing them with Caterpillars, Afrikaaner roads & tunnels, misuse of American weapons, et al. The world is watching & doesn't like what it sees. Yesterday Amy Goodman could talk to Rachel Corrie's parents, who are in Gaza right now, on her news program (Link TV) "Democracy Now" as well as grill the American consul about the recent awful incident whereby an American activist was badly injured in an ugly incident. Even my hawkish pro-Israel legislators are becoming more tempered in their foolhardy enthusiasm for Israel. Since Lebanon & now with the world's eyes on Gaza, it becomes increasingly more clear why you see (even in my home town) Americans carrying signs, "We are all Palestinians!"

[mmsaretasty]

Arafat himself rejected the two-state solution at the Camp David accords. When there was an offer literally on the table, he walked away from it. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

This leads me to believe that, to the Palestinian leadership, there is no real "two-state solution."

There is only one solution, and that is the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas blatantly acknowledges this as their aim. So don't tell me it isn't. Even the author of this article describes the Israelis as occupiers and their sovereignty as an "occupation".

It is so disheartening to me to read these pro-Palestine comments by American citizens. I will never forget the sight of Palestinians celebrating and dancing in the streets on the morning of September 11th. I fail to appreciate the logic of aiding those who took such joy in our own tragedy, whatever the reasons behind it.

I know I'll be excoriated for saying that, but I really don't care.

Israel needs to stop building new settlements and all expansion. Palestine needs to be recognized as a sovereign state by accepting a two-state solution.

[chaos4700]

No, what Arafat rejected was an arrangement whereby Israel was allowed to appropriate any of the occupied territory in the West Bank. Which is a fairly reasonable thing for Arafat to reject, considering it's a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Only in Israel would the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions be subject to barter.

[Kaviraj]

What was it before 1948?
That is the crucial question, jackson jones the revisionist.
There was no Israel. In 1920, the Balfour declaration "gave" Palestine to the Jews.
Balfour had nothing to "give". The British were not the owners.
From that ILLEGAL GIVE-AWAY the problems have begun.
So if you want to go back in history, go back to before there was anything like even the idea of a Jewish state. It all belonged to the Palestinians and the few Jews that lived there already - in peace with each other.
Then, if you really want to have a history lesson, wake up to the fact that those who call themselves Jewish are not even real Jews. They are the Khazars from Russia, that unilaterally adopted the Jewish faith and customs. They are a warrior tribe that got kicked out of Russia, because of their irresponsible behaviour.

It doesn't make sense to say that a nation has a "right" to exist. It makes more sense to say that all people, businesses, schools, and nations have a responsibility to behave in a respectable manner and if they don't, well...we get rid of them.
Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:11 AM on 03/17/2009

[MagisterLudi]

Mistakenly, Israel and Western leaders l think they help Palestinains building a state ready to coexist with Israel.
But political engineering from outside has its limits. P society has a long way to go towards political maturity and moderation;
Probably solution is to re-link P areas with some form of Jordanian and Egyptian control. This has a greater chance of stabilizing the situation.
History shows that only Arabs can rule Arabs.
These two states are at peace with Israel and behave more responsibly that P-nian leadership ever could.
And the idea of Jordan-W. Bank unification has appeal to those Palestinains more interested in calm and prosperity than political sloganeering.

Obstacles:
Most Israelis no longer believe that PA can deliver peace. The emergence of Gaza as a separate state is fait accompli. Neither Hamas nor corrupt PA can produce a viable state.
Massive foreign aid--- one of the highest ( per capita) in the world! failed to trickle down to the people.
Also, high rates of economic growth needed to match the fertility rate of Ps cannot be achieved.
Ergo, a failed state even before it's built.

[MagisterLudi]

Solution:
Gaza under Egyptian mandate. West bank regional autonomy within Jordanian state.
Palestinian Arabs were always lukewarm about their own state. The whole idea of Palestinian state only emerged when Israel ended Egyptian and Jordanian occupation of Palestine in '67 From 1948-1967 Palestinian Arabs lived under Arab annexation and even demanded Syrian citizenship.
But as soon as Egypt lost Gaza '67,suddenly out popped an Egyptian, Arafat, PLO. and strident demands for statehood.

[msfsi]

blah blah... the PLO and Fatah exited before 1967.
Palestinians demanded Syrian citizenship? source please.

[MagisterLudi]

" Instead, Israeli leaders and the Israeli people must be made to understand that the key issue is the need to end the occupation."

The ocuppation will ONLY end by negotiation between two parties who can control their populations and stand behind agreements negotiated. And with American mediation. There is no other way.
You know it just as well as anyone else.
The only leader capable of such agreement on Palestinain side, Arafat chose to fight instead of negotiate.
Now there's no one else. Abbas is powerless. Hamas are fanatics and Iranian puppets.
Leaders of Arab world are getting utterly disgusted with Palestinians and no longer willing to give them carte blanche like in the old day. Just read editorials from Saudi Arabia to Jordan.

I am afriad the alternative now is not between on-state vs. two-state. Rather it is between two-states in about 10 years or no state at all. Like Kurds.

[JacksonJones]

What was it before the occupation?

In 1948 there was no occupation, but there was a war to push the Jews into the sea.
In 1967 there was no occupation, but there was a war to push the Jews into the sea.

After the '67 War, Israel offered to return the territories to the Arab League. This offer was met by the Three Noes of Khartoum, which promised eternal war to destroy Israel. Was it the occupation then?

When the PLO was formed, its charter demanded the destruction of Israel, not the end of occupation.

The PLO put its "Phased Plan" into writting, which promised that any land "liberated" would be used for the project of destroying the rest of Israel, not to end the occupation.

The Hamas Charter demands the destruction of Israel, not the end of occupation. Hizbullah calls for the end of the state of Israel, not the end of occupation.

So, to whom, exactly, does "It's the occupation, stupid" apply?

And please pardon me for not feel particularly stupid for thinking that for they guys with the rockets, guns and suicide bombs, its not really about the occupation, because for some reason, they've been telling me something very different for 60 years.

[almazza98]

1948, some foreigners came to your home and claimed it was their home and not yours. What would you do? 1967, Israel attacked, and if you say otherwise, you are a liar... To get closer to their dream of Greater Israel... After 1967, it was always occupation coupled with the knowledge that the Zionist dream was to expand and have a "Greater Israel".

[asiswhen]

true almazza.. and that Zionist delusion is like an uncontrollable schitzophrenic beast, manifesting its true intentions in Avigdor Leiberman. Racists like Livni seek to tame the beast with the pre-civil-­rights-era partition scam, separate and unequal. The ironic thing is that this beast might end up creating a secular state on its own, and then have to face the fact that only half of its citizens are free. End apartheid, and there will be no occupation.

[Kaviraj]

What was it before 1948?
That is the crucial question, jackson jones the revisionist.
There was no Israel. In 1920, the Balfour declaration "gave" Palestine to the Jews.
Balfour had nothing to "give". The British were not the owners.
From that ILLEGAL GIVE-AWAY the problems have begun.
So if you want to go back in history, go back to before there was anything like even the idea of a Jewish state. It all belonged to the Palestinians and the few Jews that lived there already - in peace with each other.
Then, if you really want to have a history lesson, wake up to the fact that those who call themselves Jewish are not even real Jews. They are the Khazars from Russia, that unilaterally adopted the Jewish faith and customs. They are a warrior tribe that got kicked out of Russia, because of their irresponsible behaviour.

It doesn't make sense to say that a nation has a "right" to exist. It makes more sense to say that all people, businesses, schools, and nations have a responsibility to behave in a respectable manner and if they don't, well...we get rid of them.

[msfsi]

The title, clearly, applies to you.

[Taxi]

There will be no future Palestine or Israel. There will only be a single country called: The Holy Lands. Administered by a religiously mixed army of bureaucrats. Not a brutal nuke-wielding army like the IDF, absurdly charged today with protecting the spiritual sites of three competing religions.

We will see this in our lifetime. With much blood spilled before hand of course.

Gaza confirmed to the millions of undecided in the whole region, including Greece, Cyprus and Turkey, that Israel now must go and military resistance to it and it's expanding appetite for land is the only and sure way to achieving this.

To those still trying to negotiate a 'peace treaty', you are deluded and out of touch. You need to catch-up with what the rest of the region is thinking and wanting.

War is coming. Big war.

And the peace it will bring after, will not be dictated or shaped by Israel or the USA, but by all co-operating regional countries big and small.

Unfortunately for Israel, the collective thinking in the region post Gaza is that there will never be peace in the region as long as Israel exists. They now see Israel as the root cause of loss of civilian life and prosperity in their neighborhood. Not Hamas, not Hizbollah.

I don't support war, and the above is a summery of the current writings on the walls of the middle east.

[ArabianMonkey]

As much as people would like to never acknowledge this, I think you may be right Taxi!

[Mona Bauwens]

Its is so obvious that the problem is the occupation and the mind boggles that the Power Brokers ie the US have consistently failed to recognise this one basic issue is the sole issue. Further this very issue is being hi jacked by others to promote the extremism that is on the rise not only in the Middle East but all over. Israel has demonstrated continually that it wants occupation and not Peace.

[Taxi]

shshhh just don't mention the occupation will ya?! Or you'll ruin everything!

And if you DON'T want to hear about the occupation, then keep watching CNN, MSNBC, FOX et all.

For sure tune in to these stations if you prefer to see the conflict depicted as 'Palestinian violence against Israelis is caused by crazed irrational Muslim anti-Semitic attacks', and not mostly as violent but legitimate responses to a brutal occupation.

Altogether now: shshshshhh... don't mention the occupation now.... or ever!

[Ergon]

Forget two states, One State with equal rights for all.

[asiswhen]

I think advocating One State, while the logical, humanist solution, engages politics over human rights. It think the movement should be calling for: "Equal Rights and Justice for All the Citizens of Palestine-Israel".