Daniel R. DePetris: The Political Docket

Walt’s “Two State Solution: Netanyahu’s Coalition Seems Too Hardline at the Moment

Posted in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Dan on June 23, 2009

The opinions and recommendations that Dr. Stephen Walt seems to endorse are certainly important if the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority wish to take concrete steps towards peace. In fact, the idea that Fatah’s current leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is considered a pro-western Palestinian politician is a step in the right direction. For the last few years, Mr. Abbas has made a rather genuine attempt to forge a comprehensive dialogue with Jerusalem; despite the Hamas Movement’s continued defiance of working with an “oppressive occupying power”. Mr. Abbas’ declaration that he is willing to recognize Israel’s legitimacy in the heart of the Islamic world is a testament to how intimately involved he is in the whole process.

Yet, it seems like the United States (as Dr. Walt implies) is extremely hesitant to praise the Palestinian President for work on this front. The reason is quite understandable of course: any western support for Abbas would severely alter Washington’s diplomatic and military relationship with Israel.

As fearful as this sounds, this may be precisely the policy change that Washington needs in order to finally advance a Middle Eastern peace deal. Sure, AIPAC and other Israeli lobby’s hold considerable sway in the U.S. Congress. And yes, Israel is America’s only true ally in a region that has been historically ridden with anti-western sentiment. With that being said, sacrificing U.S. national interests to keep pro-Israeli lobbyists happy baffles the mind. Israel needs the United States more than the United States needs Israel.

Perhaps it is time to cut off a portion of Washington’s military ties with Israel, especially if the Jewish state is unwilling to adopt reasonable concessions towards peace. One finds it increasingly hard to believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would continue building settlements in the West Bank with such a threat looming in the air.

I do not want to sound like a biased observer that is dead set against the state of Israel. There is no question that Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab fundamentalists (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran) who make it their main objective to destroy its very existence. Let me be absolutely clear: I am a supporter of Israel when it comes to its fight against terrorism and Islamic extremism.

Yet, at the same time, the current obstacle to the Israel-Palestine conflict is not the leadership of Mr. Abbas or his Fatah coalition (as past U.S. presidents have declared). It is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to compromise. As long as Netanyahu and the Israeli Right continue to reject claims of an independent Palestinian state without unreasonable preconditions, President Obama might as well give up on trying to forge a peace agreement between these two longstanding rivals.

-Daniel R. DePetris


3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Stephen M. Walt said, on June 23, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    A Two-State Solution Requires Fixing Both States
    Mon, 06/22/2009 – 6:30pm

    As attention remains riveted on Iran, readers should not miss two important pieces on the Israel-Palestine front. The first is Tony Judt’s blockbuster op-ed from today’s New York Times, which demolishes most of the myths about Israel’s “settlements” and calls them — all of them — what they are: illegal.

    My only difference with Judt’s analysis — and it is a minor one — is his suggestion that Israeli leaders have repeatedly “hoodwinked” American officials about the nature of the settlement enterprise. That may be true of George W. Bush, who seemed to accept Ariel Sharon’s world-view rather uncritically, but it’s not true of most of Bush’s predecessors. Every U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson formally opposed the creation of settlements, and some administrations (e.g., Richard Nixon’s) also referred to them as contrary to international law. And even George W. Bush repeatedly called on Israel to stop expanding the settlements, to little avail, of course.

    The real problem has been that no president has been able to put sustained pressure on Israel to stop building settlements, because to do so would trigger reflexive opposition from AIPAC and the other hard-line elements in the Israel lobby. Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush both took on the lobby and were able to make some modest progress, but both paid a significant price for doing so. Subsequent U.S. presidents have effectively sub-contracted their Middle East policy to individuals (e.g., Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk under Clinton and Elliott Abrams under Bush) who were connected to key groups in the lobby and personally opposed to putting any pressure on Israel, so it’s hardly surprising that settlement expansion continued even though it was contrary to official U.S. policy. Moreover, as the Washington Post recently reported, the State Department issued an opinion in 1979 that the settlements were “inconsistent with international law.” That opinion, the Post reports, “has never been revoked or revised.” But it has been ignored.

    The result of all this, as Judt makes clear, has been to “create facts” that make a two-state solution increasingly difficult — and maybe impossible — to achieve. But don’t forget former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s warning: “If the two-state solution collapses, Israel will face a South African style struggle for political rights.” If Israel continues on its present trajectory, in other words, it will become an apartheid state. And once that happens, Olmert said, “The state of Israel is finished.” By turning a blind eye towards the settlement project for decades, in short, Israel’s so-called “friends” helped pave the road to a very bleak future.

    Judt will undoubtedly receive the usual denunciations from hardliners committed to defending the status quo; we can expect the usual retorts in the letters’ section from Abe Foxman of the ADL or David Harris of the AJC. But anyone with a genuine commitment to Israel’s future should welcome his honest and eloquent piece. And the Times deserves credit for running it.

    The second piece is a terrific commentary by Helena Cobban on the internal paralysis within the Palestinian national movement, and especially the current weakness of Fatah. Most people already know that Fatah and Hamas are bitter enemies, and that this rift is an obstacle to peace. But Cobban shows that the problems are in fact deeper than that, and will require sustained attention to repair.

    The dysfunctional nature of current Palestinian leadership has many origins, and lots of different groups bear responsibility for it. As Rashid Khalid documents in The Iron Cage, the British did their best to decapitate the Palestinian Arab community during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, and the expulsion of the Palestinians at the hands of the Zionists/Israelis in 1948 further decimated and divided the community. The Arab states subsequently reinforced these divisions by backing competing Palestinian factions in order to advance their own selfish interests. Key PLO leaders — including Yasser Arafat — made serious blunders themselves. Israel also did its best to reinforce Palestinian disunity by aiding Hamas in the late 1980s and by arresting or assassinating Palestinian leaders, and especially anyone who looked like they might be legitimate leader and capable foe. Given the various forces that have worked to keep the Palestinians weak and divided, it would be shocking if their leadership were not problematic.

    But if our goal is peace, then we need strong and legitimate leaders on both sides. It follows that if Israel wants a durable peace, it has an interest in doing everything it can to strengthen Palestinian leaders. As Barack Obama clearly understands, halting settlement expansion and removing the hundreds of checkpoints that are strangling Palestinian daily life would be an important step in both symbolic and practical terms. Agreement on the basic principles of a two-state solution — starting with an agreement on borders — would strengthen moderate leaders and force Hamas to choose between being part of the peace process or being increasingly irrelevant to the Palestinian future. Today, Israel’s long-term interests are advanced not by encouraging division and rancor on the other side but by helping foster a greater sense of national unity and the creation of strong and effective Palestinian institutions. The multinational effort to train Palestinian security forces (under the leadership of U.S. general Keith Dayton) is a step in the right direction, but it will only succeed if viable statehood in the near future is a realistic possibility.

    When making war, it is good to face an adversary who is weak and divided. But when it comes time to make peace, it is best if one’s former foe is competent, legitimate, efficient, and able to live up to its commitments. Convincing Israelis of that radical but rather obvious idea will be one of Barack Obama’s most important tasks.

  2. muhyedin said, on June 23, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    Forgetting something Mon, 06/22/2009 – 8:09pm

    The multinational effort to train Palestinian security forces (under the leadership of U.S. general Keith Dayton) is a step in the right direction, but it will only succeed if viable statehood in the near future is a realistic possibility.

    But these forces have only been used, or are at least widely perceived to have been only used, to crush protesters and Hamas opposition to the US-allied Fatah party. That goes against the goal of fomenting unity among Palestinians.

  3. Clint said, on June 23, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Define state
    Mon 06/22/2009 – 8:55pm

    Problem is Bibi does not know the definition of “state”. A disarmed state with no airspace nor waterway rights with no army, navy or air force does not a state make.

    Palestine lives in a dangerous neighborhood next to a nuclear armed militant fanatical-religious occupier de facto apartheid nation and thus needs a strong air force, army and navy to survive.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: