The events surrounding last week's Knesset vote on the illegal Ulpana outpost seemed like a vindication of Israeli democracy for many of its citizens. The Supreme Court ruling to evacuate 30 families living on Palestinian land was upheld, as was the notion that Israel's democracy and the rule of law can exist side by side with its expanding presence in the West Bank. This is a fiction.
While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's forceful opposition to the law did perhaps indicate that he was willing to take on the extremists within the settler movement when the rule of law was at stake, his reasons for doing so gave away his true agenda. "The solution we found strengthens settlements and preserves the rule of law," said Netanyahu directly after the vote. And in case anyone doubted the truth of the first half of his statement, he promptly announced the construction of 300 new settlement units in Beit El, before almost trebling that number to 851.
The 'solution' has indeed strengthened settlements, as well as the extreme political bloc that promotes them. It has also fundamentally damaged the rule of law and Israel's hope of a truly democratic future.
A poll commissioned by OneVoice and published last week found the general public's attitude echoed Netanyahu's thinking. While 64 percent of Israelis oppose illegal settlements in the West Bank, only 41 percent of Israelis think they present a risk to the future viability of the two-state solution. The international community considers all settlements built on occupied Palestinian territory illegal.
There is a profound cognitive dissonance at work here. The two-state solution is the only way to secure Israel's democracy for future generations. Equally, the greatest threat to that solution is continued settlement expansion on land earmarked for a Palestinian state in any future agreement. While Israeli democracy would indeed be greatly tarnished by the government running roughshod over a Supreme Court ruling, it would be crushed forever by the closing of the window of opportunity for two states.
Many Israeli politician continue repeating the mantra "Jewish democracy" to describe the type of state most Israelis want, but at the same time, they acquiesce to facts on the ground that would require an impossible choice between those two values.
Without a settlement freeze, millions of Palestinians residing in cities and villages where settlement construction encroaches heavily on their lives would either have to become citizens of Israel (much like the Palestinians of '48) or else remain stateless forever. The first option results in an unworkable bi-national state that is no longer Jewish. The latter could possibly mean an immoral and certainly undemocratic government reminiscent of apartheid.
The pressures Netanyahu endures from an increasingly powerful lobby of the extreme right have left him trying to muddle through by following the court order on illegal outposts, but at the same time not confronting the real challenge of Israeli democracy, presented by his own policy of settlement expansion.
A counter lobby of Israelis must exert even greater pressure on Netanyahu to realize the two-state solution. As suggested by Professor Alan Dershowitz's latest article in the Wall Street Journal, Israelis need to join in a sustained campaign across the country that calls for a settlement freeze. This would not only serve to restart negotiations with the Palestinians, it would also ensure that when talks resume, there is enough belief among them in the possibility of achieving a viable state.
The alternative makes the debate of last week on illegal outposts a marginal issue, facing as it does an obvious need for Palestinian civil rights, either as citizens of a yet-to-be-established Palestinian state or as citizens of a bi-national Israel. This is the real choice for Israelis: settlements or democracy. Israel cannot have both.
This piece was co-written with Tal Harris, executive director of OneVoice Israel, leading grassroots efforts in Israel toward the two-state solution for Middle East peace.
Follow John Lyndon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnlyndon1
In 1948 I would not have supported the creation of Israel, in 2012 while it still irritates that cheats should prosper I support a two state solution. In this we are in agreement for the moment. The time is rapidly approaching when that second state is no longer viable. In fact we could debate whether we have reached that point already.
As the son of a Palestinian refugee I see the Irony of my saying to Israel, "Let my people Go" especially when Israel is perfectly willing to do so. We both know that it is the land not the people that Israel cares about.
Thus far what has been offered to the Palestinians has not been an independent Palestinian state, but an Israeli protectorate. A state who's borders and foreign policy will be controlled by another. I believe that the time is not that far away when the Palestinian authority will be disbanded and the Palestinians will concede that a state of their own is not viable. That they will then seek a one state solution.
It is just a new spin on a never-ending Arab fantasy of destroying Israel.
There is no way Israel would absorb five million mostly illiterate, unemployed, hostile Palestinians.
1. The Palestinian Authority meets it declares that a Palestinian state is no longer viable.
it disbands and passes legal control of the Palestinians territories to Israel. Israel would have to move in to take control, for its own security at the very least.
2. The Palestinians now under full control of Israel would demand the right to vote.
All this done without Israel making an actual choice.
Accurate observation!
and 1 state... not gonna hapend.
Why are you talking to Israel?? it's the Palestinians who should run, not walk to the negotiation table. Every day they are stalling it's another day under occupation. You probably don't know that yet, but people in Israel are so sick of the WB issue some started to call for unilateral withdrawal(not the settlers and the far right)We know what they want.
97 percent of the West Bank is still "Jew-free," just like supporters of Arab apartheid against Jews want it to be.
As for Israel having a peace partner, no, Israel does not have one. If you "look at the record," the record clearly states that the Palestinians, when given a choice, voted for the militant Islamist group Hamas who have sworn to wipe Israel out no matter how long it takes.
Write a better editorial next time.
1939 - The Palestinians are offered a state under the British White Paper proposal of a unitary Arab state. Rejected. No counter offer.
1947 - The Palestinians are offered a state by the UN (larger than anything they are claiming today). Rejected. No counter offer.
1990s - The Palestinians choose terror over forming a state of their own.
2000 - Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank. Rejected. No counter offer.
2008 - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis. Rejected. No counter offer.
Oh yes Mr. Lyndon, it is ISRAEL that must move towards a two state solution.
Israel know they have Palestinians in a catch-22. Either they accept the occupation and live as dogs or they resist the occupation and continue to lose their land.
In a long-term point of view, the Israelis are capable but not willing to exterminate the Palestinians; The Palestinians are willing but not capable of exterminating the Israelis.
Thus it is "logical" for the Palestinians to simply wait, as they say, for Israel to disappear like the once-powerful Crusader kingdom (lasted ~100 years).
From a non-western perspective, the worst thing the Palestinians could do was to agree on "an end to the conflict" combined with a peace agreement - which incidentally explains why Hamas offers only a 10 year truce in exchange for the 1967 lines. It is attractive to gullible westerners while fitting an eastern historical view.
Its hard to be fair with those who are trying to destroy you.
I think Israel is doing pretty well. Any other country would have flattened Gaza and destroyed half of the WB by now.
How very humane and generous of Israel.
"Unlike the enlightened rulers of Gaza?"
Not all Palestinians love Hamas.
This is like saying all Israelis love Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, or approve what he says.
"There would be no Israeli building in those areas likely to become part of a Palestinian state. There would be no limit on Israeli building within areas likely to remain part of Israel. And the conditional freeze would continue in disputed areas until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and which will become part of the new Palestinian state."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303674004577432640819025670.html
Conditional meaning on the continuation of negotiations in good faith.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
until there is peace and then the Palis will decide where to build and where not.
I agree. However, the dissonance--or blindness--is the author's, not the Israelis'.
There is no contradiction in both opposing the settlements and believing they pose no significant obstacle to a two-state solution. Israel has evacuated their own citizens both as part of a peace agreement (Sinai, which worked out fairly well) and unilaterally (Gaza, which has been a failure). Moving people is not the problem. Forging a peace agreement is.
That is the author's second blind spot. He says that Israel "must move toward a two-state solution" but ignores the other major player in this conflict, the Palestinians. No agreement can be reached unless BOTH sides work toward it. Israel has frozen settlement expansion in the past and, contrary to the author's assertion, the Palestinians did NOT rush to resume negotiations.
The settlements are an obstacle to peace, but they're far from the only or even the main one. The major obstacle is unwillingness to negotiate (on both sides, but greater on the Palestinian side) and an unwillingness by people like the author to recognize that both sides, not just the Israelis, must work toward that two-state solution.
And regardless, is it ethical to encourage Jewish families to come and live in the West Bank when they will likely have to be removed in the future? Look at how the evacuees from Gush Katif have fared, with many still living in temporary housing.
Regarding the headline, it wasn't my choice, HP wrote it. My headline was 'Israel must choose between settlements or democracy." I 100% agree with you that the Palestinians need to move a great distance, and that both sides bear a lot of responsibility for the current impasse. But regardless of the Palestinians, Israel needs to halt expansion of settlements in order to save itself.
Haj Amin Al Husseini was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
But we're going to ALL pretend that that's OK. While 20% of Israel is Arab/Muslim and the bar is set so low for the Arab Palestinians that they could slide on their bellies and still hover above it.
So must the Palestinians. Yet from Ma'an news
"Islamic rule will prevail and will not make peace with secularism, the Interior Minister in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip said Wednesday.
"There will be no peace with secularism. The only peace is first with God, then with Jihad, then with resistance, then with the people and with martyrs," Fathi Hammad said.
Speaking at a graduation ceremony for 184 police officers, Hammad said the officers would pursue traitors to the Palestinian cause and strengthen the home front in Gaza, which he said was the bridge to liberate Palestine."
The true Palestinian goal is the end of Israel and the driving of the Jews back to Europe where they [incorrectly] believe the Jews came from.
Until that fantasy finally dies, there really cannot be peace.
Settlements are NOT the reason the Palestinians exhibit little interest in moves toward a negotiated borders. They are just the latest excuse.
No stopping settlement construction until Palestinians, including Hamas, come to the table offering substantial concessions.
No free rewards for daily jihadist terror against Jewish civilians. None.
"The chair of Yisrael Beiteinu, the party headed by Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, in Upper Nazareth has called for a campaign to pay Palestinian citizens to leave the city.
As reported by HaKol HaYehudi (‘The Jewish Voice’) – and translated here – Alex Gedalkin has suggested that $10,000 be paid to every family that would sell its house “and leave town forever”.
Justifying his proposal, the Yisrael Beiteinu activist explained that such a move would “benefit everyone” by “avoid[ing] needless friction in the city and maintain[ing] the Jewish character of Upper Nazareth”."
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ben-white/initiative-upper-nazareth-10000-every-arab-family-leaves
Original text:
http://www.hakolhayehudi.co.il/?p=34875&fb_source=message
The winds have died down for you... pls go fly your kite somewhere else.
People Power rules!
It doesn't matter if every single Israeli was 100% in support of the two state solution. There is zero interest in it from the other side.
It doesn't matter if every single Palestinian was 100% in support of the two state solution. There is zero interest in it from the other side.