Is the Two-State Solution in Palestine Dead?

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu left Washington last week with a tremendous tactical victory. By skillfully marshalling sympathetic Americans through AIPAC, he managed to deflect the speech by President Obama two days before he arrived that had argued for–even demanded–the resumption of Israeli-Palestine peace talks aimed at creating separate Jewish and Arab states (the 1948 UN mandate for the area) based on the pre-1967 boundaries (nowhere addressed in 1948) in the area as a starting point. “Indefensible,” Bibi roared, and the U.S. Congress dutifully rose from their seats at his address and cheered. Obama was left out on a ledge by himself politically, and Bibi flew out of town a hero to the political right in Israel. In the process, Bibi even appeared to capture the high road of being conciliatory and convincing the political right in the United States that his government indeed did favor peace–just not the one the President proposed. Neat trick, that. Score one for Natanyahu.

The Israeli tactical victory does, however, come with a price. In all likelihood, the real result of Bibi’s tour de force was  to drive the last nail into the coffin of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. Neither the Palestinians or the Israelis, much less the Americans (who seem more enthused about the prospect than either of the principals), are publicly admitting this consequence, but it looms nonetheless.

Why such a gloomy prognosis? Let’s start by stripping away a bit of the generally pious rhetoric on both sides of the dispute. Both sides argue publicly that they want peace based on “two state for two peoples,” but it is by no means clear that either in fact do. Each begins by saying it is the side that truly wants peace but that the other side does not. It then issues what it argues are not preconditions for successful negotiations but which are in fact deal-breaking conditions it absolutely knows the other side wil not accept (which is the real reason for proposing them in the first place). This allows the other both sides to argue, fingers probably crossed behind their backs, that they want peace but the other side does not. Neither side is exactly lying, but neither side is exactly telling the truth either.

This works out in the current environment. Bibi proclaimed that Israel was willing, even anxious, to see peace, and had made numerous proposals without preconditions on which to proceed. Well, not quite. Netanyahu prefaced this apparent generosity by saying that, of course, the Israelis could not be expected to negotiate with terrorists intent on the destruction of the state of Israel (Hamas) and that Israeli security must be honored in any agreement. Those sound like reasonable positions (members of Congress certainly seemed to think so), but they are also effective deal-breaking preconditions that insure no Palestinian government can possibly enter into negotiations on their basis. Why? The exclusion of Hamas (with which the Abbas government has now entered into a working agreement with) means the Palestinian Authority must turn its back on a political body that has considerable support in the Palestinian population. Fatah might want to do that (just as the Obama administration might like to exclude the TEA Party from negotiations on the deficit), but they cannot. The guarantee of Israeli security operationally translates into a permanent Israeli military presence on the West Bank (Bibi admitted that in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, as reported here last week), which is roughly like saying Mexico will agree on a border security arrangement with the United States as long as it can maintain permanent security forces in Dallas. Palestinian demands regarding the disposition of Israeli settlements on the West Bank offer a parallel.

I am not arguing that either of these Israeli positions in unreasonable or indefensible from a strictly Israeli view–especially at the tactical level of security today for the Israeli state. Simply raising these to the public eye in the United States (although not in Israel, where such critiques are much more open) brings squeals of indignation about “pushing Israel under the bus,” in Mitt Romney’s shrill, thoroughly unimaginative term, which I suspect is the exact reaction for which Bibi hoped (and was rewarded). 

The real concern is what this kabuki by the Potomac means for an eventual peace settlement between the antagonists based on the two-state principle, and here, the landscape is bleak. There were no peace talks before the recent visit and exchange occurred, of course, and it was Obama’s state purpose to reinvigorate them. This was probably impossible under any circumstances because, as I have tried to argue here, it is not clear that either side truly wants such talks to progress to that end. The Israelis may be right that the Palestinians ultimately will agree to no outcome that does not entail the disappearance of Israel, and the Palestinians may be correct that the Israelis will never allow a fully sovereign West Bank Palestinian state. Both sides certainly act that way (pious rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding), and the Netanyahu visit was certainly congruent with the thesis that a peaceful settlement will not occur because neither side is willing to make the honest concessions and compromises to create one.

I know that partisans on both sides will heatedly dispute this assertion and pepper me with evidence of the sincerity–even magnanimity–of their efforts to move toward a peace that would be possible if only the other side was not treacherous on the subject. Such denials (since they generously include condemnations of the honor of the other) do not move the situation toward peace, and I am personally not convinced they are intended to do so. The tactical game is decidedly status quo-loaded.

So, is peace based on a two-state solution dead? For the time being and in the short run, the answer is yes. For the president to try to follow up on his initiative at this time would be an exercise in futility (which was almost certainly Bibi’s intent to demonstrate to him, at which he succeeded) meeting Einstein’ definition of insanity. The only thing that can revive peace based on a two-state formula that represents a reasonable compromise for BOTH sides is a drastic change in power on both sides: a Palestinian leadership that is strong enough to resist and reject its extremists, and an Israeli leadership that accepts the long term demographics of the region and accepts losing part of “greater Israel” as the price for a long-term peace. In the meantime, the sounds of continued construction on the West Bank narrow the possibility that any two-state solution remains physically possible.

Will time run out before the preconditions for a two-state solutions are completely dead? If peace is the patient, the prognosis is not promising, but the patient has not quite expired. If, however, the two-state solution does die, that fundamentally changes the parameters of the game in ways that could very much disfavor those Israelis who have done their level best to derail the two-state solution. Game, and maybe set, to Netanyahu. Match? Not so clear.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Is the Two-State Solution in Palestine Dead?”

  1. william bilek Says:

    While this post is thoughtful and thought-provoking, it still ignores several perceptions and truths, and misstates facts.

    “just not the one the President proposed.” The President has “proposed” many things, on many issues, in many places. That does not make his “proposals” sacrosanct. Many consider Pres. Obama a naive neophyte in matters of foreign affairs, and particularly in understanding the complex dynamics that underlie the issues of the Middle East Conflict. He, (as most Americans) approach that issue as a “community organizer” with an eye to “conflict management”. Unfortunately, this is not a labour-management disagreement with some union in Chicago, and cannot be handled as such.

    “Both sides argue publicly that they want peace based on “two state for two peoples,” Completely, and crucially, UNTRUE! If only the Palestinians ever agreed to that concept, most of the conflict would be resolved. Their (oft-denied) “recognition” of Israel unconditionally also includes a right of return of millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to the Israel they say they are prepared to recognize, which would turn Israel into another Arab-majority state.

    “Bibi proclaimed that Israel was willing, even anxious, to see peace, and had made numerous proposals without preconditions on which to proceed.” TRUE!

    “the Israelis could not be expected to negotiate with terrorists intent on the destruction of the state of Israel (Hamas)” Also TRUE! If a potential party to the negotiations states, a priori, does not recognize the existence of the opposing interlocutor, and has declared that the only possible outcome is the extermination of that party, what, exactly, is there to “negotiate”?

    “Israeli security must be honored in any agreement. ” That is a reasonable negotiating position. Why in anybody’s universe should that be put forth as an “effective deal-breaking preconditions that insure no Palestinian government can possibly enter into negotiations on their basis”? If the mere concept of discussing Israeli security is a deal breaker, what, again, is there to negotiate?

    “the Palestinian Authority must turn its back on a political body that has considerable support in the Palestinian population. ” If that is true, that a considerable part of the Palestinian population supports the unarguably genocidal, anti-Semitic policies of Hamas, should Israel consider “negotiating” the pace and methodology of effecting those policies? Should the U.S. have negotiated with Hitler, and Hirohito in 1941?

    “The guarantee of Israeli security operationally translates into a permanent Israeli military presence on the West Bank ” This is NOT an a priori demand to re-start negotiations, but is a reasonable point of negotiations.

    “like saying Mexico will agree on a border security arrangement with the United States as long as it can maintain permanent security forces in Dallas.” I was not aware that the U.S. has repeatedly attacked Mexico from Dallas, with the declared intention of exterminating the Mexican people.

    “Palestinian demands regarding the disposition of Israeli settlements on the West Bank offer a parallel.” Not at all. Palestinians, Egyptians, etc. have negotiated in the past, while Israeli settlement activity continued. The eventual disposition of the settlements in Sinai were negotiated with Egypt. It was Obama’s impetus that has now made the Palestinians use the issue as an absolute pre-condition to re-starting negotiations.

    “I am not arguing that either of these Israeli positions in unreasonable or indefensible from a strictly Israeli view” Why is it “a strictly Israeli view” if the destruction of the Jewish state is not, as the majority of Israelis believe, the ultimate goal of ALL Palestinians?

    “(although not in Israel, where such critiques are much more open)” As they should be. Those who have the most to lose (their lives, and the lives of their children, their country); those who have the democratic freedom to formulate their choices should be the ones arguing the options most vociferously. Those “advising” from the safety and security of the rest of the world, even with the best of intentions, have no right to “demand” any actions on the part of the democratically elected government of Israel that it believes are inimical to the country’s secure existence. Such “demands” do constitute “throwing under the bus”, a la Chamberlain’s Munich agreement and Czechoslovakia.

    “There were no peace talks before the recent visit and exchange occurred,” because Abbas broke them off, and based on Obama’s misconstrued ultimatum to Israel, refused to re-start.

    “neither side is willing to make the honest concessions and compromises to create one.” How do we know what further concessions Israeli might be willing to make, if Abbas refuses to negotiate? And I can list a long series of concessions that Israel has already made, without a single reciprocal one by the Palestinians. Can you name any concessions that have been made since Arafat said the required words (never put into action, and always predicated on his “Policy of Stages”) to get the Israelis and the U.S. to recognize him in the mid 1980’s?

    “a Palestinian leadership that is strong enough to resist and reject its extremists,” That is no help, if even the “moderate” Palestinian leadership is perceived as holding the same ultimate goals, differing only on the pace and methodology. How about a Palestinian leadership that comes out clearly, unequivocally, in both Hebrew and Arabic, in support of “two states for two people”, and takes visible,concrete steps towards meeting its repeated prior commitments to end incitement, foreswear violence, etc.?

    “an Israeli leadership that accepts the long term demographics of the region and accepts losing part of “greater Israel” as the price for a long-term peace.” What more does Israeli leadership have to do to demonstrate that? And does doing so, of necessity, require abandoning red-line defensive positions that would allow the state to defend itself, by itself?

    “sounds of continued construction on the West Bank” are those being made in existing population centers, not expanding them, or building new ones. As it stands, Israeli settlements sit on less than 2% of the land of Judea and Samaria. A simple look at the map will show that there is no physical impediment to the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state, if that is the true goal.

  2. Well thought-out article and difficult to argue with anything you wrote. The most important thing though, in my view at least, is to try and present possible solutions, however difficult any peace process may be.
    Here is a deliberately brief draft, in case you’re interested.

    http://apeaceproposal.wordpress.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: