Has a tipping point finally been reached in the Middle East? Lucy Netanyahu pulled the football away from Charlie Brown Obama once too often. And so now he has to realize, or at least accept publicly, that Israel has no intention of giving up control of Jerusalem, if not the West Bank. Joe Biden even linked Iraq and Afghanistan to the goings on in Israel. Now that's progress -- acknowledging even more of the obvious.
But one tipping point may just expose the next. Even if Netanyahu is dragged to the bargaining table, albeit one that is kilometers long, can anyone believe that he, or any other Israeli prime minister, will negotiate a Palestinian state? How long will it take to reach this obvious tipping point: more days? more decades?
No-one should be surprised by this situation. Had the establishment of the state of Israel required the permission of the Palestinians, there would be no state of Israel. Likewise, should a state of Palestine have to await the permission of the Israeli government? If ever there has been a place in need of binding arbitration on the diplomatic front, surely this is it. There may be a great deal to work out, but can anyone believe more so than with the current expectations of a negotiated agreement?
When America gets this message, all its timid allies will likely fall in line, and the State of Palestine will come into being. And that may be the best thing that can happen to Israel.
Israel was established thanks in good part to the guilt of the western countries over their behavior toward the Jews during World War Two -- and I refer not just to Germany. Surely there must now be enough guilt to go around, especially throughout the Middle East but also in Europe and North America, about the treatment of the Palestinians these past decades. Perhaps it could be put to some good use with regard to the settlements: what if a fund were established to enable Palestinians to buy the settlement buildings for the cost of their construction? That might avoid the debacle of destruction that accompanied the settlers' departure from Gaza, while helping current ones to resettle in Israel.
As for Jerusalem, the tide seems to be turning against Israel's claim to the whole city. This suggests a situation akin to divided Berlin. But there is an alternative; at least with regard to the old city: the Vatican, a religious state within a political one. What if each religion controlled its own quarter and holy sites, while together they formed a common administration around the table? This may be rife with complications, but surely less than two states facing each other across that table?
A brilliant woman named Mary Parker Follett wrote in the 1920s that there are two common ways not to resolve a conflict: domination by one side and compromise by both. The Middle East has had decades of domination and unrelenting calls for compromise.
In the case of domination, she wrote, the defeated side "will simply wait for its chance to dominate," while in the case of compromise, neither side "gets what it wants" and so "the conflict will come up again and again." Here we have the Middle East in a nutshell.
This conflict in the Middle East is not between Israelis and Palestinians so much as between extremists and moderates. And the extremists on both sides have been steadily winning, as they have used each other's outrages to ratchet up their own. The trouble is that while one or other of the extremist sides wins each battle, always at the expense of the moderates, neither side ever wins the war, meaning to dominate the other. Israel will not disappear into the sea any more than will millions of Palestinians leave the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Mary Parker Follett suggested another approach, beyond domination and compromise: "never let yourself be bullied by an either-or situation"; instead "find a third way," which she called "integration," when both sides face what they truly want and find a common solution to that." The basis for such a solution in the Middle East lies in the fact that the moderates want peace and quiet, not settlements or missiles. Indeed there are many examples of moderate Palestinians and Israelis cooperating constructively with each other.
Lord Acton gave us with what is probably the truest law of human nature: that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thanks to the unwavering friendship of America, Israel has been able to exercise near absolute power in its immediate region. It dominates, and its current politics allow precious little space for compromise. Instead it continues to pursue its suicidal strategy of settlements. Remove American support, and watch that house of cards collapse.
Flaubert wrote that "The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." He might have said that about true friends of a country too. This may be the moment when America can become a true friend of Israel.
Henry Mintzberg is Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at McGill University in Montreal.
Israel will never ever allow a Palestinian state. The US is beginning to understand this.
So, as you say, the only hope of survival for Israel is not through submission or domination, but the third way. integration.
You dont' bully your friends. Meanwhile, the madman in Iran is going to get the bomb becaue of a feckless international approach. They will use it, mark my words, they will use it and they will use it on Israel.
The purpose of the Iranian bomb, all bombastic rhetoric notwithstanding, is to dissuade the US from attacking like we did in Iraq.
You also say: “Israel was established thanks in good part to the guilt of the western countries over their behavior toward the Jews during World War Two -- and I refer not just to Germany.â€
I say Israel was established thanks in good part to the guilt of the western countries over their behavior toward the Jews OVER THE CENTURIES. (Do the French remember the Dreyfus Affair?)
My solution would include hefty compensation to the Palestinians paid for by the Europeans (especially Germany) and the Church.
Israel should return to 1967 borders.
Those are the actions of Israelis, with the tacit support of their government, said supprot being shown by protection of the IDF as the crimes happen, or the refusal of the Israeli government to prosecute the criminals and terrorists. Israel is financially responsible for reparations for these crimes.
And what will you do to Palestinians who want their farms instead of money?
I certainly do not condone the Israeli abuses of the Palestinians.
The fact is, there would be no Israel if the Europeans had not made the lives of the Jews so miserable.
The Europeans have basically taken what was called “The Jewish Question†and moved it to Palestine.
They should pay.
Here in lies the root cause of the Palestine/Israel Conflict. Integration. The demand that others recognise Israel as a Jewish state is a refusal of integration. The immigrants that came from Europe while never becoming a majority of the population refused to integrate instead demanded control and rule.
IF we are to accept that integration is the ultimate solution to this conflict then we must consider a single democratic secular state. However being in the real world it might require a two state solution in order to achieve it. This what might be what the Zionist is afraid of?
You're faved and fanned
What an impressive & sensible article.
“If Americans truly are our friends, they should shake us up and take away the keys, because right now we are driving drunk, and without this wake-up call, we will soon find ourselves in the ditch of an undemocratic, doomed state.â€
Jonathan Ben-Artzi was one of the spokespeople for the Hadash party in the Israeli general elections in 2006. His parents are professors in Israel, and his extended family includes uncle Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Ben-Artzi is a PhD student at Brown University in Providence. He describes himself thus: “I am an Israeli. Both my parents were born in Israel. Both my grandmothers were born in Palestine (when there was no “Israel†yet). In fact, I am a ninth-generation native of Palestine. My ancestors were among the founders of today’s modern Jerusalem.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0401/Peace-for-Israelis-and-Palestinians-Not-without-America-s-tough-love
One minor quibble I have with this article is this:
"This conflict in the Middle East is not between Israelis and Palestinians so much as between extremists and moderates. "
It is not. It is a classic struggle of an indigenous people to regain their land after a particularly vicious colonial dispossession.
If forced to use their own resources, if backing from other countries ceased when human rights violations began, with the agreement of it continuing when a viable agreement is formed- well, in an ideal world that may have an effect. It would require a united front from nations who aren't the best at seeing eye to eye, and the determination to stay the course.
But, the way Israel has been treating the Palestinians, the slaughters, the "ghettos", the forcing them into smaller and smaller areas, cutting off their food supplies at a whim, they're becoming the monster the rest of the world fought. This is 1 step from genocide, and is quickly escalating in that direction. Nations do have to back off their support of Israel's illegal actions, because it is the only thing that might lead to honest, open, peace talks.
"They only became belligerent when they realized that Israel had NO INTENTIONS of fulfulling its promises or complying with its part of the deal".
If this is so, that Israel had no intention of promoting peace:
1. Why did Israel unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and destroy the homes of Jewish settlers who had lived there for 40 years, if not to free up land for a Palestinian state?
2. Why did Menachem Begin give back the Sinai desert to Egypt, including the oil fields, and involving the destruction of the Jewish settlements, in return for "peace" in the 1970's?
Also:
3. TERRORISM WAS THE PALESTINIAN TACTIC OF CHOICE EVEN BEFORE ISRAEL BECAME A STATE. Look at what those terrorists did to the Jews of Palestine in the 1930's......[this involves you doing some research and looking up the FACTS. A novel idea.].
1. There was no end to the Israeli occupation of Gaza, Israeli retains control of its borders, coastline, and airspace; refuses to allow a functioning airport or seaport; continues to control Gaza’s electricity, water and telecommunications networks; and reserved the “right†to launch military incursions at will---which it has repeatedly done since its “withdrawal.â€
2. Jimmy Carter, who threatened a cutoff of American aid to pressure Menachem Begin into returning all of Sinai to Egypt, which made possible the 1979 Camp David agreement.
3.The Irgun Zvai Leumi included between 3000 and 5000 armed terrorists, and grew out of the Haganah and its Palmach branch in 1933.
August 20, 1937 - June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.
In 1939, one of Irgun's commanding officers, Abraham Stern, left the parent organization and formed the Stern Gang, numbering some 200 to 300 dangerous fanatics.
July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.
The time for ignorance has ended.
As far as the U.S. relationship with Israel, it's very simple: cut them off. Stop sending them billions of dollars of my money. Why should American working people be forced to give money to Israel, to pay for the education, healthcare, and even apartments for the people of Israel? It is a corrupt criminal enterprise by which our politicians vote to send my money to Israel, and israel in turn launders money back into the U.S. to give to my politicians. Who is the big loser? Me. The taxpayers of this country.
The U.S. has primary responsibility for the violence against and continued theft from the Palestinians. We should set up a fund to be used to re-build Palestine, and tell Israel that if they so much as look crossways at "our" reconstruction money, the U.S. will send more than a few firecrackers back in their direction.
Israel simply bombs the Palestinians for no legitimate reason at all, blowing up their homes, trying to kill them all or force them out. We need to cut off Israel now, then go in and help the Palestinian people.
America has and does give money to the Palestinians, as does the European Union. Millions of dollars. Problem is that their leaders (the PA; Hamas) use it to buy arms to kill Israeli civilians. That's where it all goes: on terror. They'd rather destroy Israel than build a viable Palestinian state.
The Palestinian leaders also use the money for themselves. Arafat had 350 million dollars in a Swiss bank account when he died. Much of that was OUR American money. His extended family all own Mercedes cars, when everyone else travels by donkey, or bus. It was that kind of corruption that got Hamas elected.
You can spew your hasbara nonsense all you want, but Americans dont appreciate contributing their tax dollars to the only apartheid country in the 21st C., especially when that money should go to our people living in tent cities on the west coast, and whose previous tax dollars are supported an apartheid regime.
Henry Mintzberg has it right.
While we're wishing for things I'd like a flat-black unicorn equipped with an ion cannon.
End of line.
Prove it. Show me some kind of document that proves East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinian nation. Please.
UNSC Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) affirms that "the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity..."
UNSC Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) "...all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity..."
In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that “no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.†The Court denoted this principle a “corollary†of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law†and a “customary rule†binding on all member States of the United Nations.
As a UNSC member, the US agrees to abide by the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Hence, under international law, the US must view all lands that Israel occupied during the war it launched on 5 June 1967 as illegally and belligerently occupied.
Good article, Mr. Mintzberg.