This rather sad email exchange between Michael Oren and David Rothkopf at Foreign Policy is worth the read. David Rothkop sums up what many liberal Zionists and liberal supporters of Israel are thinking these days. While I’m surprised that a recent three trip was his first visit to Israel ever, he seems to understand the cold logic of the situation better than Oren, whose own vision of Israel is steeped in the moral posturing of the old narrative, in historical claims that once were true. Anyone even remotely familiar with the country will recognize with Oren that Israel today is more “open” and “less provincial and homogeneous” than it was in the past. But not more “democratic.” What Oren fails to grasp, at least in this exchange, one meant for public consumption, is that without a territorially defined demos, without a clear-cut border like the one established by the Green Line, the country is more compromised politically than ever used to be the case. Has he let the cat out of the bag? If he truly thinks “a two-state solution is unfortunately unlikely,” then maybe it’s time to call it a day and get behind the idea of giving West Bank and Gaza Palestinians the right to vote in Israel. More than any argument pressed by Rothkopf, it’s Oren’s own logic that leads to this conclusion.
I agree with you. The reason for a two state solution — in the simplest terms — is not because of the Arabs but because of the Israelis. But, as I see it, the logical outcome of a two-state solution in the short run is to create a weak Palestinian state alongs the line of Syria/Egypt/Lebanon i.e. civil war. It would in fact be madness to allow such a condition if you just look at the geography. Benny Morris was right.
I am perplexed by people like Caroline Glick who blithely assert that demographics don’t favor an Arab majority. It’s as if “demographics” are some independent variable given by G-d…as if she is unaware how easy it is to make more babies and shift demographics over just a few decades. It can go either way, of course, but on the Jewish side, the fertile sector is ultra-orthodox. As one individual non-Israel voter, do I want to see a super-religious Jewish Israel? No way. (My mother left that repression and thank G-d she left that tradition to me.)
So yes, it all seems very grim and hopeless unless one is some sort of Mondoweiss Jew.
But I don’t agree with you about Rothkopf; first of all it is amazing — astounding! — that considering that he was/is a foreign policy expert and US govt official that he had never been to Israel before, and then spent only 3 days. That alone suggests such ambivalence and fear of Israel — too Jewish? — as to make his opinions somewhat suspect. Weird, really. Do you realize that he was managing director of Kissinger Associates? Hard to believe that simply in the course of having spent decades in the foreign policy world that he would have NEVER been to Israel. So no surprise that he doesn’t want to be a Zionist.
But I think that Oren was right on and recognized very clearly that Israel has a dilemma: that it can’t hold on to the West Bank and can’t let it go. Anyone have a better idea?
To me the general approach is to withdraw (or at least significantly stop settlement) and to slowly cede day-to-management of West Bank by PA and see if PA can grow in honestly and popular support.
Now everyone has epiphanies in life; mine about Netanyahu is the recent tender for 700 housing units which killed the talks. And my epiphany about Abbas is that he didn’t seize on the Olmert plan and/or keep insisting (to Obama/Kerry and the EU) that all new negotiations should start with the Olmert Plan. Of course Bibi would say no. But that’s my point. If Abbas had been serious he would have been saying over and over again — “Hey! We were just about to respond when Olmert got fired. But we like the basis.” That, to me, would have shown seriousness of intent.
Israel already ceded day-to-day managemet of Arab affairs in Judea and Samaria to the PA, the results are well-known.
And the notion that building homes for Jews somehow “kills the talks” is… well, I’ll be polite and call it “incomplete”. Why didn’t it kill the talks before? How about the demand by the PA to release Israeli Arabs who are convicted murderers? Didn’t it kill the talks? And to think that this idea was launched by John Kerry – he’s the one who killed the talks with his wild instinuations and promises made on behalf of others (Israel) he wasn’t authorised to do and couldn’t keep.
How about restoring the Jordanian citizenship of the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria and allowing them to vote for the Jordanian Parliament? Or a federative system, along the lines of Belgium, with or without Jordan? Personally, I don’t think it will work because as Oren states “Israel has accepted at least three two-state solutions since 1947, each of which was rejected by the Palestinians and almost always with violence.” I think that until the Arabs give up the ideal of destroying Israel and creating a Jew-free Palestine, there won’t be any progress. Giving the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza the right to vote in Israel is not going to help that.
That’s fine, but a federative system means a one state solution, just like Belgium is one state. As for releasing murderers, the Netanyahu government found it easier to do that then to freeze settlements, which was the other option for maintaining the “talks.” Alas, it’s hard to see what practical solution you’re actually suggesting here.
First of all, there is already a Palestinian state called Jordan, and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria are citizens of that state. Secondly, a federation does not necessarily mean that these Arabs automatically become Israeli citizens. A joint Israeli-Jordanian rule might be an option. On the other hand, I don’t think any deal will work as long as the only thing that will satisfy the Arabs is a Jew-free Middle East. So let’s focus on erasing the notion that the Jewish state will somehow vanish from the Arab heads and then we can talk about the minor details. In the meantime, Israeli control over security and Arabs handling their own civil affairs is the situation on the ground and it works for both sides, and peace is promoted by joint efforts to normalize relations and coexistance, not “talks”.
I don’t recall that being the deal – freeze on Israeli construction OR release of murderers. At any rate, the PA applied for joining UN bodies long before the announcement of building tenders, and that WAS a breach of the deal to start the talks. Besides, talking peace with Israel AND making a deal with Hamas is trying to eat the cake and leave it whole.
I don’t think this is about the Arabs anymore as much as it is about the Jews not coming to terms with what’s possible and what’s not. The entire political balance in Israel-Palestine hangs and has always hanged on international recognition, and nobody recognizes Jordan as a Palestinian state. So that ship won’t float. As for the deal, settlement freeze or release murderers, that has been widely understood and widely reported in the Israeli press. I think the logic is running out. You either accept a 2 state solution or you create a single bi-national state that will be fundamentally broken from day one.
I stand corrected on the prisoner release.
But the two-state solution (4 state actually, with Gaza and Jordan counting) will be broken as well. So what’s the point of creating it? The Arab state, even if it will be on all territory gained by Israel in 1967 would collapse immediately and overrun by warlords from all over MENA, like Syria is.
In the meantime, the situation on the ground is that Israel is in military control and the Arabs live their own life, unbothered as long as they don’t try to kill any Jews. Any Arab who wants to live in peace can do so at any moment – like the Arabs who are the citizens of the State of Israel.
I think the best Israel can do is consolidate its military control over the area, and leave the Arabs to their own affairs, much like Israel does now. Any other action is potentially self-destructive. The only addition might be that Israel welcomes any Arab residents of Judea and Samaria as its citizens (without relocation – annexing their towns and villages Crimea-style) if they renounce violence, swear loyalty to Israel and fulfil their civil duties. Of course, their commitment will be only rewarded with citizenship after a trial period. And encouraging emigration of the Arabs who don’t want to live in the Jewish state.
Normally I don’t agree with Caroline Glick.
But take a look at
http://carolineglick.com/our-world-letting-go-of-abbas/
Some interesting thoughts there.
thanks for the link. CG’s diagnosis is interesting, but not useful. and the prognosis holds no water.
Dear Michael: I saw this on twitter and thought of our earlier conversation: –Zjb: Retweeted by Blue White Future Aaron Magid @AaronMagid 1h
Why did the US agree to Bennet’s idea of releasing prisoners, no settlement freeze? It enflamed anger on both sides burying any deal
My epiphany is when Netanyahu went to the UN to reject that first Palestinian statehood bid by Abbas. He said it was too dangerous, which means that if he’s right and Israel can’t leave the territory, then they have to give the people the right to vote. Alas, the bid would have actually established a border. Israel should have been the first country to vote in favor. As for Abbas, if I recall, Olmert was just about on his way out of power when he made the deal. Abbas probably still should have accepted it, unless he can’t or won’t. I think we’re looking into an abyss.
LIKE I TOLD YOU ON YOUR LAST VISIT, THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE TWO STATE SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE ARE DREAMING NO MATTER IF THEY LIVE HERE, HAVE NEVER BEEN HERE, OR HAVE JUST COME. EVEN IF TOMORROW THE GREEN LINE WAS PROCLAIMED THE BORDER I FORESEE MUCH MORE PROBLEMS THAN WE HAVE TODAY AS IT WOULD LEAVE 350000 JEWS (MOSTLY FANATICS) iN PALESTINE, AND IT WOULD LEAVE 1 AND A QUARTER MILLION PALESTINIANS IN ISRAEL, IF ANYBODY THINKS THAT THIS SITUATION CAN BE CONTAINED BY CREATING TWO ENTITIES I REALLY DON’T KNOW HOW THEIR MIND WORKS
i agree. but how does anyone think that one entity can contain these contradictions?
IT MUST FIND A MODEL TO DO SO THERE IS NO CHOICE. THE THING IS THAT ON NEITHER SIDE ARE THERE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING ANYTHING TO WORK ON MODELS
Thanks, Zeev. My very thoughts exactly.