Loving The Two-State Solution to Death

It didn't take long for the "two-state solution" to move from the category of radical to banal, but that is what has happened.

Today the "two-state solution" is everyone's favorite remedy. And yet it is farther from realization than ever. Its fate may, in fact, be that rare instance of a concept being killed by kindness.

Look at what happened at the United Nations on Tuesday. The Security Council passed its first resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in five years. It passed with a vote of 14-0, with Russia and China among those supporting the Bush administration's draft. (Russia, in fact, joined the United States in co-sponsoring it.)

The good news is that the resolution strongly endorses both bilateral and multilateral efforts to achieve the two-state solution -- including the Arab Peace Initiative. With its passage, it becomes impossible for anyone to argue that the United Nations does not unambiguously support the so-called Bush vision of "two-states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security."

This is all good, and it represents the kind of effort the Security Council would have taken long ago were it not for the neocons of the Bush administration. (President Bush actually appointed John Bolton as our representative to the world body despite Bolton's antipathy for the United Nations and contempt for the peace process. Is it any wonder that it's been five years?)

But why a new resolution now? One reason is that there have been significant changes on the ground over these past five years. But, more significantly, the Bush administration is eager to burnish its Middle East legacy. A failed Iraq War and a worsening Arab-Israeli conflict will not look good in the history books.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made that motive clear when she began the debate over the resolution by contrasting the post-Bush Middle East with the Middle East that President Clinton left behind. She essentially says that President Bush saved the situation.

"The situation in the Middle East is very different now from the time when President George W. Bush had entered office in 2001. At that time, the Camp David process had collapsed leaving Israelis and Palestinians in a vicious cycle of violence... Each time a ray of hope had penetrated the darkness, it had been snuffed out by intolerance," she said.

But then Bush came along and "convened the Annapolis Conference, the first major peace conference in 16 years and the only one of its kind on United States soil."

That, of course, was in November 2007 near the end of the Bush's second term.

According to Rice, it was only after Annapolis that the Israelis and Palestinians began meeting regularly to achieve an agreement. This is true, although it raises the question of why the administration waited seven years before getting down to business.

But beyond that, it is hard to point to any particular improvement on the ground as a result of Annapolis. In fact, the only significant improvement of any kind has been Generals Dayton and Jones' strong and effective efforts to train Palestinian security forces in the West Bank, which had nothing to do with the Annapolis meeting.

The sad fact is that the most significant Israeli-Palestinian legacy of the Bush administration is the coming to power of Hamas. Historians will have a field day when they consider that the Bush administration insisted on Palestinian elections because Natan Sharansky and his neocon friends wanted them. They actually convinced the President that elections are a good thing, in any and all situations, even if anti-democratic forces win.

This isn't Rice's fault. Like the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, she is said to have warned Bush that elections could be disastrous. But the resident neocons insisted on them. Perhaps they hoped that a Hamas victory would kill the peace process or maybe it was because, as with everything else, they just substituted wishful thinking for coherent policy. And, no big surprise, Hamas won.

As a result, we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable.

So the occupation continues with more settlers, more settlements, and more pain for Palestinians. Israelis endure rockets from Gaza and Gazans endure economic blockade while Corporal Shalit has spent two birthdays in a cell.

This is what the UN is endorsing. What are they thinking?

They may be thinking that, with their formal endorsement of the two-state solution, they will somehow lock the concept in. They may also be thinking that they are backing Binyamin Netanyahu into a corner and that, if elected prime minister of Israel, he will have no choice but to honor a UN resolution. (I expect that Netanyahu, like Livni or Barak, would seek peace with the Palestinians. But he is far less likely to be moved by anything the United Nations does, but rather by what Barack Obama wants).

The Security Council might also be thinking that this resolution will help the Palestinian Authority and weaken Hamas.

But it won't. That is because the resolution endorses the ban on any dealings with Hamas unless it agrees to the three conditions the Bush administration has insisted upon ever since it helped bring Hamas to power: Hamas must recognize the right of Israel to exist, abandon violence, and accept all previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements.

The three conditions were designed to bring Hamas down. They haven't. Even worse, they seem to have had the opposite effect. The only condition that should be insisted upon is the total and absolute end to violence. If Hamas agreed to that, it might be possible to move on to the rest. But, of course, as is the case with Iran, the Bush administration has set out conditions it knows will not be met.

The bottom line is this. The Security Council resolution's seeming endorsement of the legacy of the past eight years is, in that unfortunate phrase, a case of "putting lipstick on a pig."

The Obama administration needs to start fresh, and that means approaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a sense of urgency the Bush administration never demonstrated.

Professor Alon Ben-Meir of New York University, a leading expert on the Middle East who has devoted his life to advancing Arab-Israeli peace, is not looking to the United Nations for more resolutions. He is looking elsewhere.

In his syndicated column, he writes:

"The Obama administration must embrace the Arab Peace Initiative, initially adopted by the Arab League in March of 2002. First, because it represents the collective Arab will which can rein in Arab extremists, and also because only a comprehensive peace with all 22 Arab states offers Israel the security it has sought since its inception in 1948.

"The Obama administration must persuade Israel to formally accept the Initiative, while assuring Israelis that the United States will guarantee their security and will insist on maintaining Israel's Jewish national identity under any peace formula.

"The United States must play an active and direct role between Israelis and Palestinians by appointing a presidential envoy with a wide mandate who must stay in the region for as long as it takes until an agreement is forged."

He also says that the United States should encourage Israel to move swiftly to wrap up an agreement with Syria. That would, by definition, increase Israel's security, and would also severely weaken Hezbollah, Hamas, and the other radicals who depend on Syria for support and military aid.

That is the way to go, not through more United Nations' resolutions that endorse peace initiatives but do little, if anything, to implement them. (The UN's role can be critical after a deal is reached -- when it can help enforce it -- but not before).

In any case, President-elect Obama does not need lessons from George W. Bush on how to achieve Arab-Israeli peace.

There are, however, former Presidents who could offer some good advice. There is Jimmy Carter, without whom Israel would likely still be in a state of war with Egypt and who demonstrated that when it comes to Middle East peace negotiations, he not only starts the process but is a "closer."

And then there is Bill Clinton who brought Israelis and Palestinians closer to an agreement than ever before and certainly ever since. President-elect Obama might want to talk to his Secretary of State about the near peace of 2000. She'll remember it. And, I'd guess, she would like to help finish what President Clinton started.

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center.

Comments

[SiberianRat]

Great post. I so hope that Netanyahu doesn't win the next election--that'll kill prospects for peace in the foreseeable future. I agree 100% with the points laid out by Prof. Ben-Meir. This mess is the worst festering sore we have on the planet, and it costs the US billions of dollars a year (that we don't have to spare), not to mention the awful loss of life and suffering which results from this situation. I personally don't think Israel is ready for peace, but we'll see. In any case, let's hope that Obama's administration is far more effective in facilitating the process. I'm a little nervous about the AIPAC schmoozing, but I'll try to defer judgment until I see what happens.

[BubbaC33]

Bibi is going to win.

[goldcoastsailor]

Israel cannot live in peace with anyone, let alone those displaced by Israel.

[Alex02139]

Attitudes such as the above are the main reason why Israel must remain strong and free to act in its own defense. Scratch a progressive and you find a bigot, as we saw in Prop 8, and as we see on this board.

[chaos4700]

Right. Because everyone who stands up to Israel's crimes is an anti-Semite. You know that hollow rhetoric is getting tired and it grants cover to actual bigots who really are a threat to Jews.

[SiberianRat]

Ah yes, anyone who doesn't kiss the political rear of Israel is a bigot, no matter what kind of international laws that government break and no matter what kinds of crimes the IDF and settlers commit. One might interpret your comment as bigoted toward Arabs. Maybe even toward all Muslims. Hmmm, seems you might be a stone thrower in a glass house...

[arvay]

Israel's "power" is a gift from the US, they are incapable of defending this intruder state without billions of our money.

Too many israelis cherish this fake invincibility, this bravado that's paid for by the American taxpayer.

No nation so unpopular with its neighbors and so dependent on another nation will survive indefinitely.

And Hizbollah recently demonstrated that even with all these American dollars and weapons, the mighty IDF can be beaten. It's a lesson Israel failed to absorb when the Egyptians pushed them away from the Suez Canal -- the Americans rescued them, once again.

Next time what? Nuke lebanon? Gaza?

[BubbaC33]

A two-state solution has existed since 1922. Transjordan was established to provide a homeland for those Arabs not willing to live in Israel. This points to the problem with the process in the Middle East, apparent in most of the postings on HuffPo. Most folks blame Israel for every problem, showing no ability to understand the history of the region and a desire to advance the reversal of causality.

[arvay]

Israel, a foreign transplant, IS the problem.

Its people don't belong there, they were put there by cynical Europeans happy to dispose of millions of homeless Jews in the wake of WWII. And of course a well-financed Zionist cabal, which put itself into power in the new nation. They put this intrusion in precisely the place where the European Crusaders plunked their (doomed) kingdom. Brilliant.

Its claim to the area is exactly the same as the Third Reich rationale -- "Blut und Boden" -- blood and soil. A specious link between people of a specific ancestry and land, often someone else's land.

The only solution is a single democratic state for both Arabs and Jews.

[chaos4700]

That's the best, most succinct explanation for the origin of the Israel/Palestine affair as I have yet seen.

[kimleehan]

Call it Manifest destiny, in that it was preordained by god, Hea, it worked for the whites when they stole the lands from the indians and mexicans.

[BubbaC33]

This is so typical of anti-Semites, use a lot of info that sounds real, but is a collection of dishonesty. Israel is not a foreign transplant, that is a lie. The land of Israel is and always will be the homeland for the Jewish people. It was not created in 1948, it was reconstituted.
What is really a remarkable lie and misrepresentation of historical fact is the comparison to Nazi Germany. Any writer using such an analogy is insensitive and ought to be condemned by people of wisdom and reason.

[newworldman777]

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has become the canker sore of the earth. The entire world is sick to death of their constant, interminable bickering and fighting. I, as a Native American (Indian), have accepted the fact that we, like the pre-1948 Jews, lost our land. We, however, we are not waging constant warfare against the European Americans to regain that lost land -- unlike the Jews, who drove the Palestinians off of their land to reclaim it, since "god" promised it to them forever.

I cannot blame the Palestinians for their anger. The European Americans would be just as angry at us Indians if we were to force them onto "occupied territories." In fact, they would undoubtedly resort to utilizing the same violent tactics against us that the Palestinians are using against the Jews, if we were to reclaim our land.

Give up the aggressive tactics, Israelis. If this conflict continues, I can assure you that the world will soon grow very weary of the stubborness on both sides, and we will abandon you to let you fend for yourselves; and being surrounded by hostile Arab neighbors, that won't be such a good thing for you.

[Alex02139]

The United States has no business mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US has shown itself to be completely incompetent in Middle East affairs and should be distrusted by all parties. The conflict can only be solved when
A) Palestinians realize that they have no chance of winning any armed conflict and that the State of Israel is not going to disappear, ever.
B) Israelis realize that there is no military solution to the Palestinian problem and that the Arabs will never give up without an honorable solution that includes land concessions
C) both parties acknowledge that this conflict will take another century or more to fully resolve, so that armed fights will achieve exactly nothing in the long term.

[peterg76]

One of the few cases where democracy has made real progress in the Middle East.

[DontSpin]

On another note, I suggest you read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/on-abortion-pro-choice-is_b_152744.html

[gladiatorpodolsky]

What's wrong with a 3-state solution? Why not separate Arab states in Gaza and West Bank?

[chaos4700]

Divide and conquer? Yeah, Israel's already pursuing that strategy, if you haven't noticed.

[DCato]

The C19th European nationalist idea of the monoracial nation-state as the supreme political ideal was always a dangerous fantasy. Almost every problem in the Near and Middle East, from the Balkans & North Africa to Pakistan/Afghanistan, arises from attempts to impose this fantasy on the unyielding reality of a region left a patchwork of identities/allegiances by millennia of shifting empires and populations. Saddest has been the destruction of the Arab-Jewish cultures once found from Tunis to Baghdad. Between Zionists insisting the only way to be a Jew was to be a Jew-in-Israel and Arab nationalists insisting the only way to be an Arab was not-be-a-Jew, they suffocated. The Arab v. Jew conflict is not ancient: it is new, barely a century old.

The two-state "solution" is the latest attempt to impose the failed and failed again nation-state model. It may set back the day of reckoning but it's no solution.
We need not an Israel trapped in C19th mindsets but a C21st Israel. A one-state solution. An Israel that's a homeland for Jews and Palestinians.
I do not pretend that's easy: it will take decades of work. But it's the only chance for enduring peace. The crusader states survived a century in perpetual opposition with their neighbors until the wheel of history turned (as it must) and they fell. While the nationalists insist Arab/Israeli is a binary opposition that same fate awaits the state of Israel.

[SchmaltzyTheGolem]

Well said. States based on a unique culture alone are doomed to fail. Which is why I like to look at the U.S. as a Political entity rather than just a cultural one. We don't have a "Ministry" of Culture and we are uncomfortable with (and rightly so) being described as a "Christian" Nation by Leaders who preach from pulpits to mass congregations. The problem is the desire by some to see the total failure and/or destruction of one side or the other in this conflict. There seems to be 3 types of posters on this subject: The supporters of Palestine,the supporters of Israel and then there are the people who have there eyes wide open and are able to subdue there bigotry and deal in reason and not myths,falsehoods and libels that are centuries old. I struggle with my own emotions and hostility and try to remember that all are human beings no matter what wretchedness I see posted by some. It's a struggle.

[arvay]

I agree -- we all need to see each other as human beings, that's the indispensable step one.

I think there are enough people among both the Palestinians and Jews who do not want the total destruction of the "others" to overcome the fanatics. Most of us want the same things, peace, security, a better future for our families. Problems arise when "leaders" use us for their larger ambitions.

If the South Africans can work to overcome the horrible legacy of apartheid, so can these people.

[arvay]

Right on the mark!

A single, democratic state with equal rights is the only practical solution. The South Africans, with their terrible legacy of apartheid, are struggling toward that goal. Bantustans won't work in the Middle East any better than they worked there.

And it's clear that the proposed Palestinian "state" would merely reshuffle the impossible demographics and simmering resentments of the current situation in the hope that a new ghetto wall will insulate Israelis from attack. (What an irony!)

But once the Arab population is integrated with the Jews into a single state, with common goals and destiny, there's a real "road to peace." It's going to be very difficult for Islamic fanatics to attack such a state. And the crazy Likudists will be totally outnumbered politically. Practical problems of housing, industry, exports, etc. will start to crowd out all the nutty religious dogmas.

Your example of the Crusader state is quite apt. Israel exists not because it fits in the area, but because the US gives it incredible amounts of money and arms. It's a hothouse plant, not integral to the local environment. Its bravado and delusions of invincibility are based on someone else's power and money.

As Hizbollah recently demonstrated in Lebanon, even with such an ally, the IDF can be thwarted. Israel's nuclear weapons are useless against the close in insurgents that are the real threat to its existence. It needs to abandon its racial delusions and join the world.

[Moncar]

Folks, the situation between Israelis and Palestinians will remain as is for years, if not centuries, to come. It's been pretty much this way for a hundred years and, because it only takes a couple of crazies on either side to upset any real peace movement, it ain't changing.
While both sides have merit and blame enough to go around, would one of the many who are quick to blame, if not hate, the Israelis please explain why the Arab states, especially the ostentatiously rich ones bordering the Gulf, don't tithe themselves some of those oil billions, if not trillions, and transform Gaza and the West Bank into a paradise for the Palestinians, beginning with sewers, runningt water and decent shelter.
Now, there's a secret weapon: Make the Israelis, rather than the Palestinians, envious.

[chaos4700]

They don't tithe themselves to the Palestinian cause because Israel will simply swoop in and bomb the infrastructure away like they've already been doing. Case in point, also what they've done to Lebanon.

[arvay]

Right you are.

[BubbaC33]

The destruction in Lebanon has been at the hands of the Syrians. Check and see how Hafez al-Assad handled the people in Hama. Just as Iraq considers Kuwait to be a province, so Syria thinks of Lebanon.

[arvay]

First they'd have to shoot their way past the Israeli blockades.

And the last thing Israel would permit would be the empowerment of the Palestinian population. This is a typical Israeli canard, meant to deflect resentment on the rich Arab states for a problem Israel is creating.

Israeli policy for decades has been to deny the validity of Palestinian identity and to keep a real, economically viable Palestinian state from emerging on its borders. Among other things, they want a source of cheap labor and Shabbas goys.

[Paul]

The rise of Hamas also signals an end to the way military power is used by the US and Israel.

Bombing people does not work.

[Danny]

Hamas is a POLITICAL party, and will have to be recognized as such.

[BubbaC33]

The primary identity of Hamas is not as a political party, but as a terrorist group responsible for the deaths of Arabs and Jews.

[zaz33]

Why is it that headlines almost always read "Israel responds to Hamas rocket attacks" and never reads "Hamas responds to missle assasination of Hamas leader"? He said/She said and Israel gets the benefit of the doubt when it"s not always true.

During the six month cease fire there were lulls. During those lulls Israel could have shown some benevolence by opening the crossing and allowed more vital supplies into Gaza. The supplies allowed were far below the needs and probably not what was agreed to.

The Palistinians gained almost nothing from the cease fire except possibly fewer deaths

I've come to believe that the Hamas of today is not the Hamas of a few years ago. If no one talks to them except Jimmy Carter (who has no influence in Israel or Washington) we'll never know.

If Israel and the US wanted peace they would allow Fata and Hamas to unite rather than dividing them.

There will be no peace until the US and Israel get serious and accept the Saudi peace plan with MINOR revisions.

[1yojimbo]

Israel has become an apartheid state. It is fascinating that the very people that were instrumental in bringing down the apartheid regime in South Africa, making the world aware of the genocide in Darfur, and supporting the Tibetan cause, have a huge blind spot when it comes to the crimes against humanity being done to the Palestinians.

Two state resolution, it is too late for that. We in the west have destroyed all good will that we had in the middle east. I don't think anything short of the dissolution of the state of Israel will help resolve the situation. Until then, both sides will be locked in a Zero Sum Game. An asymmetric conflict, where the west (America, Israel) have superior fire power, and the east(arabs) pursue guerilla warfare-not unlike what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cost of these military engagements only serves to enrich the military industrial complex.

[HARMONIAMUNDI]

Thank you for your most excellent and insightfull comment!

[chaos4700]

You've framed the real lay of the land much better than the author of the post above. I concur with what you've written.

[SchmaltzyTheGolem]

"dissolution of the state of Israel" means what exactly?

[chaos4700]

One-state solution. Put Palestinians and Israelis under the same citizenship, and make each an equal in the eyes of a single parliament.

[newworldman777]

it means that the Israelis should go the route of the Native Americans. They should accept the fact that they lost their land, and they should therefore get on with surviving in land that belongs to others. We Indians do it, so they can do it as well. Problem solved.

[Danny]

1yojimbo ---"The cost of these military engagements only serves to enrich the military industrial complex". Bears repeating.

[FearlessFreep]

"It is fascinating that the very people that were instrumental in bringing down the apartheid regime in South Africa, making the world aware of the genocide in Darfur, and supporting the Tibetan cause, have a huge blind spot when it comes to the crimes against humanity being done to the Palestinians."

Not all of them.

[1yojimbo]

"Not all of them."

Yes you are absolutely right. There are many liberal jews that realize what is happening in Israel today, and are speaking out about it.

I was completely humbled by the actions of the Israeli human rights organization, Btselem, that have been providing video recorders to the Palestinians, so that they can document the atrocities that are being done against them. Recent actions by Israeli settlers in Hebron came to light thanks to the enlightened work of this group.

The Palestinians suffer an "image" problem in the west. They would have been well served to have had their own Dali Lama, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, type leader.

[angler]

The situation remains as it has for decades because Israeli leadership continues to Palestinian land.

[Libarchist]

Hamas will always be funded by terrorists around the world.

As a liberal pacifist, I believe the only non-violent way to resolve this issue is to stop negotiations, it is a waste of time.

As a half Jew in the United States, I can assure you Obama is not qualified to help resolve the conflict; in fact, he will inflame it - behind the scenes of course with the CIA.

As I see all Palestinians should be evicted from the West Bank; and with no one there, they will have no way to send the rockets; they won't be able to send them from the other Arab countries, because-- they will not want to be at war with Israel.

And, with the likely increase of anti-Semitism, Jews may need to move to Israel, so they need the West Bank.

[chaos4700]

And you call yourself a liberal pacifist? You endorse outright ethnic cleansing and neo-colonialism, and you have the gall to call yourself a liberal?

[OrganOfThought]

He is clearly not.

His post is quite offensive. Only a bigoted extremist would suggest "evicting" people of a particular race from a region (who have been living there for thousands of years).

[FearlessFreep]

After you've subjected the West Bank to ethnic cleansing, what will you do about the Palestinians living in Jordan on the border of the West Bank? Will you end up clearing them out too?

[baffy]

Surely you are a militant, Zionist, racist? Or are you simple an illegal illegal settler (all settlers are illegal but some, apparently, are more illegal than others).