acanuck's picture

    A one-, two- or three-state solution?

    By acanuck on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 3:46pm | World Affairs

    Near the start of the military offensive against Hamas, Orlando sparked a spirited but civil debate with the question, "What is Israel thinking?" I argued one strategic goal was to drive a deeper wedge between the West Bank and Gaza, by forcing Egypt to open its Rafah crossing to refugees and wounded and take on the task of supplying food, fuel and medicine. If all Gaza's lifelines ran through Egypt, Israel could make the claim it is no longer the occupying power. Washing its hands of Gaza would, in theory, make it easier for Israel to strike a peace deal with Mahmoud Abbas's PLO in the West Bank.

    Some have taken the concept even further. Writing in the Washington Post, one-time UN ambassador John Bolton proposes not only that Gaza revert to Egypt but that Jordan be handed sovereignty over most of the West Bank. There, Palestinian problem solved.

    Bolton calls it his three-state solution, but of course it's a no-state solution for the Palestinians. He avoids any mention of whether they should have any say in their fate. And glosses over the fact that the Egyptian and Jordanian control of Palestinian territory he wants to reassert lasted less than 20 years, compared with 40-plus for Israel.

    Fortunately, the Egyptians and Jordanians hate the idea about as much as the Gazans and West Bankers do. One Egyptian official declared his country would not fall into the "Israeli trap." The main opposition to the Hosni Mubarak regime comes from the (officially banned but now tolerated) Muslim Brotherhood. The last thing Mubarak wants is 1.5 million new citizens loyal to Hamas, a Brotherhood spinoff. King Abdullah of Jordan already has up to 2 million Palestinian refugees on his territory; the last thing he wants is 2.5 million West Bankers claiming citizenship rights. Arafat's PLO came scarily close to overthrowing his father with less of a base than that.

    Bolton's proposal is a non-starter among the Arab stakeholders who would have to implement it. So why raise it now? Well, even though Bolton presents it as a fresh idea, it's long had currency on the Israeli far right, in the form of "The Palestinians already have their state. It's called Jordan." A version that surfaced after the second Iraq war was "Everyone take two steps to the right." In this neocon wet dream, Israel would annex most of the West Bank, the Palestinians would take over Jordan, and that country's Hashemite rulers would be given Iraq to run.

    All this thrashing about for a third option stems from Israel's long-term demographic dilemma. The right-wing ideologues and settlers reject the concessions needed to reach a viable two-state solution, but a one-state solution is even more unworkable. Simply put, Eretz or Greater Israel cannot exist as both a Jewish and a democratic state. By some counts, there are already more Arabs living within the territory Israel controls than there are Jews. Shunting off Gaza to Egypt might buy another decade or two, but that problem will not go away. Indeed, as realistic Israelis abandon the vision of a single state stretching from the Jordan River to the sea, the idea is catching on -- with Hamas.

    So it's either a separate Palestinian state (and soon!) or it's the unthinkable: forcible population transfer. Creation of yet another generation of Palestinian refugees. That horrible thought is bubbling not far below the surface. During the current election campaign, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni had to backtrack after musing that, after any future peace deal, Israeli Arabs (who make up about one-fifth of the country's population) might find their natural home in the newly independent state of Palestine.
    And Tzipi is no fringer; she's the prime ministerial candidate of the centrist Kadima Party.
    I try to look at the current Gaza violence as one last show of military might before Israel sits down for serious peace negotiations. My hope is for a quick ceasefire, and that Kadima (in coalition with Labor) wins the Feb. 10 election.

    Then bold action is called for: at a minimum, freeze settlement expansion and remove some of the 600 or so West Bank checkpoints. Cut a deal to free Gilad Shalit. The next step is to let Fatah and Hamas form the national unity government Israel and the U.S. have consistently blocked. There can be no peace deal without a single Palestinian voice, and Abbas by himself is too weak to play that role. I'd even free Marwan Bargouthi in a prisoner exchange, and let him rally younger Fatah members to oust the party's corrupt old guard. For any peace deal to work, Palestinians need a glimmer of hope in the future. Hope for the Palestinians also happens to be the only hope for Israel.

    Topics: 
    World Affairs

    Comments

    Thanks for the post, acanuck. As you say, the "three state solution" is nothing new. I'm not talking about the hard-right canard that Jordan is the Palestinian's state. In their delusion, they imagine Jordan as a Palestinian state with its current borders; the West Bank would become part of Israel. In fact, peace proposals in the 70's envisioned Jordan annexing the West Bank, and the late King Hussein was into it. It was Arafat who understandably rejected annexation. Jordan only renounced it's claims to the West Bank in 1988. I expect that Jordan feels differently today, but "abhorrence" is too strong a term. Nonetheless, they would never annex in the face of Palestinian opposition

    With regard to Egypt and Gaza, you are quite right. Gaza is poorer, smaller, more crowded, and less religiously significant than the West Bank. Egypt wants nothing to do with it. Even many the hardline settlers don't want to Gaza. Now if oil were discovered in Gazan waters, I expect that many Israelis and Egyptians might show more interest.

    Nonetheless, the three-state concept is a nonstarter simply because the Palestinians will never accept it. Though the Israelis would love it--they feel that they can deal with Egypt and Jordan in a way they feel that they can't with Fatah and certainly not Hamas--I don't know of anyone other than nut cases like Bolton who take it seriously as an option.

    Alas, I'm not confident that we're anywhere near a solution. The best that we can hope for in the short term is a new cease fire with Israel and Hamas sullenly muttering at each other across the border. In an optimistic mood, I imagine Israel lifting the blockade and a gradual improvement in mutual trust and economic relations. But I'll be shocked if Kadima wins, and I can't imagine the relationship with Hamas improving under Bibi.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 11:05pm

    BTW, here's a NYT article from a year ago which discusses the same issues. That's progress for you.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 11:09pm

    Glad you could find the time to comment, Genghis. And thanks for the NYT link, depressing as it is to recall how stuck the "peace process" is.

    Was the Arab League initiative really seven years ago? Is it really 16 years since Oslo? An entire new generation of Palestinians has grown up who do not believe in words, promises or pacts, who do not believe in justice, law and order, who do not believe in their anointed leaders. This is not in anyone's interest -- not in Israel's and not in that of anyone who hopes to build a peaceful Palestine.

    No, I'm not confident of progress, either. In her public pronouncements, Tzipi Livni is trying hard (somewhat successfully) to out-hawk both Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu. On the U.S. side, virtually all of Congress (Ron Paul and Kucinich excepted) are trampling one another to praise the Israeli offensive. And Hillary Clinton has just named Dennis Ross her Mideast envoy -- a virtual guarantee that, whatever hopes Obama's election may have raised, the American tilt in the region will not change.

    But hey, I was hoping to stir up more controversy. Won't anybody come to the defense of Tzipi Livni? Dennis Ross? Ron Paul?


    by acanuck on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 12:22am

    Ron Paul is a handsome man.

    Too much reasonableness in the post to stir up controversy. Except maybe the bit about "letting" Fatah and Hamas form a national unity government. You can blame Israel and the U.S for many things, including the fomentation of Palestinian discord, but ultimately, no one bears more responsibility for the Hamas-Fatah split than the Palestinians themselves.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 12:39am

    You're giving Mahmoud Abbas way more credit than I do for being an independent actor in the Fatah-Hamas split. This excellent Vanity Fair article spells out in detail how the U.S. State Department deliberately scuttled the national unity government that the Saudis had painstakingly negotiated:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

    People talk about how the Gaza clash may be weakening or strengthening Hamas (I think it's the latter). But at least as crucial is the degree to which it has hobbled Abbas, who has been pathetically ineffectual even in speaking up for ordinary Gazans. His support on the West Bank today may well be lower than George Bush's.

    By sheer coincidence, under the Palestinian Basic Law, Abbas's four-year term as president is supposed to end TODAY. He apparently had the legislature pass a law extending his rule for one year, but it's debatable whether you can override a constitution that simply. Anyway, it's not like the U.S. or Israel are going to call him on it -- and they're really the only players that matter.

    I'm still dismayed that Dennis Ross is being allowed anywhere near U.S. Mideast policy, but it looks like his role may be less than it appeared at first glance. He's on tap as Hillary's "senior adviser" and "ambassador-at-large" for the Mideast.

    But it's also being reported that Richard Haass will be Obama's special envoy tasked with the peace process. Haass reportedly is a pragmatist who backs the opening of unofficial "channels" to Hamas. I foresee U.S. Mideast policy being pulled in opposite directions, but I guess it's an improvement over it all being pulled in the same disastrous direction.


    by acanuck on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 2:49pm

    I'm going to have to read the article later, but I do remember how Israel and the U.S. pinned their hopes on Dahlan. They desperately wanted Palestinian leadership strong enough to crush the militants and pragmatic enough to make peace, so they imagined in Abbas-Dahlan a pragmatist/toughguy duo who could serve the purpose. But of course, wanting is not getting, and the efforts of U.S.-Israel to support Fatah contributed to the civil conflict and West Bank-Gaza split.

    But the key word here is "contributed." You seem to inconsistently apply agency to the Palestinians, particularly the Hamas leadership. When they make poor or immoral choices, you seem to blame Israel and the U.S. for forcing the decision, in effect making the choices for them. Examples: refusing to extend the truce and violently retaliating against Fatah. I haven't seen you do this, but many Israel critics also blame Israel for causing Palestinian terrorism by oppressing Palestinians. Certainly, Israel's actions have encouraged Palestinian terrorism, discouraged Hamas from extending the truce, and contributed to the internal conflict. But in denying agency to Hamas and the Palestinians, you patronize them and present a one-sided picture in which they bear no responsibility for some horrendous actions. Such a picture can also lead to mistaken prescriptions for solving the conflict. Eliminating U.S. and Israeli interference will not transform irrational and unethical actors into pragmatic, responsible leaders, and I highly doubt that it would stop the terrorism or lead to Palestinian unity. (If anything, Israeli oppression has more often encouraged Palestinian solidarity.)

    To reiterate, the U.S. and Israel should stop ineptly trying to manipulate Palestinians, which is only making things worse, but when you baldly blame outsiders for bad choices by the Palestinians, you're not treating them as the autonomous agents that they are.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 6:13pm

    I don't think we fundamentally disagree about this. There is an obvious assymetry of power here, and that largely informs the way all sides -- Hamas, the PA, Israel and the U.S. -- think they have have to "play the game." It's led all of them into some very bad choices, ones that advance neither peace nor the specific goals they profess to aspire to.

    There's plenty of blame to go around, and if I haven't assigned Hamas its fair share, I'm confident the U.S. Congress will step in and more than make up for that oversight. But blame shouldn't be the game here. If the preponderance of power favors your side, you have a lot more influence over how your enemy behaves than he has over you. It's a mistake to squander that power -- which includes wealth, allies, international reputation -- in purely military action. Even if you win, the gains are often short-term, illusory or counter-productive.

    If anything good has come out of the Gaza war, it's that it's really put discussion of the Mideast end-game front and center for perhaps the first time. There's still way too much yelling (I can imagine how a thread like this would have degenerated on TPM), but a lot more people are concluding the status quo is simply not tenable, and saying so. They are right.

    The conflict isn't ending just yet; incredibly, an "escalation" is about to be unveiled. But when the dust and rubble settles, I have hope (approaching confidence) it will be for the last time. Not only will the "rules of the game" have changed, everyone will be sick of the game. But I've been wrong before.

    Dagbloggers who have stuck around will notice that I'm maneuvering to get in the last word here. I've enjoyed the cut-and-thrust, but it's time to propose an unconditional ceasefire. Thanks, Genghis, for inviting me to blog and then finding the time to make the thread a lively one. I sort of wish it had been more than a dialogue, but I realize few dagbloggers are as earnestly opinionated on this topic -- read pig-headed -- as we are.

    Cheers. And do read the Dahlan article when you get a chance.


    by acanuck on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 5:12pm

    As a third party, i don't think I'm violating the ceasefire by commenting here (but feel free to retake the last word and reply if I so move you), but I just wanted to let you and Genghis know I've enjoyed reading your little tete-a-tete. You both are informed, reasonable, and thoughtful, words and qualities which alas don't often apply when it comes to anything to do with the crisis in the Middle East.

    I didn't feel compelled to interject mostly because I've just gotten to the point of complete frustration when it comes to the situation. A few years ago, I started reading all I could about the crisis, the historical origins and the modern-day developments, written from perspectives on both sides of the issue, and found myself more bewildered and confused than before.

    As a human being, it is too much of an ever-present reminder of the tremendous evil and stupidity we still have within us. I see blame everywhere.

    But as a Jew (once religious, now very secular), I can't help but feel more disappointed with the conduct of the Israeli side, partly because I think the Jewish theology at its best is much more idealistic and humanistic than Israel has shown through its actions (I just don't know as much about the Islamic faith to make a similar comment), partly because of the asymmetric power structure you mentioned, and partly because I think the history of the Jewish people should make us much more empathetic to the concerns of oppressed people, and much more sensitive to the fact that we may now be on the other side.

    Unfortunately, I think our difficult history instead has led only to an unhelpful, almost-paranoid level focus on aggression and mistrust. The most disturbing thing about the whole situation from my vantage point is I really believe many Jews and most Israelis believe the Palestinian people (and most Arabs, frankly) are somehow a different species, that they only understand military might and don't want the peace, stability and prosperity that human beings of all ethnicities and races desire.

    Clearly, some of that mistrust is justified as anti-Semitism is undoubtedly rampant in the Arab world, and the total destruction of Israel remains an implicit or explicit goal on the political agenda in many of the neighboring countries. That's not a very good point off of which to start meaningful, fruitful negotiations.

    But I suppose I just have a more idealistic belief in the basic goodness of man, and believe that much of the hateful rhetoric on the Arab side is political and institutional and not nearly as widespread on a personal, individual level. I had hoped that if nothing else, pragmatism and self-interest would lead to an eventual understanding between the two peoples.

    Of course, at some point, the ironic end result of Israel's aggression and disproportionate retaliative actions could be that the hatred does become a lot more personal and embedded in the Palestinian/Arab psyche, making such an understanding even less plausible than it now seems.


    by Deadman on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 1:42pm

    Thankfully, we can have this kind of discussion here. Just minutes ago, I read (via Haaretz) that Arab parties have been banned from taking part in the Feb. 10 Israeli election. Words finally fail me.


    by acanuck on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 2:03pm

    That's terrible news. Arab lawmakers are appealing to the courts. The supreme court has in the past acted as the conscience of the nation. May they do so again.

    Meanwhile, the NYT proclaims the two-state solution imperiled (about a year after the previously linked NYT article proclaiming the two-state solution imperiled), and a NYT blogger proposes a one-state solution, which seems even less likely to me than Bolton's three-state solution. While two-state seems less achievabie than ever, I predict its resurrection simply because there are no other remotely achievable solutions. Do I hear four-state? Going once...

    Thanks again for the great post and discussion, ac. I also encourage other folks to join in. Until the next time...

    PS Ha, last word. Don't try to win this battle. Speaking of unequal power, I'm prepared to use every administrative power at my disposal to maintain my position.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 2:30pm

    Latest Comments