Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, May 11, 2009

The Problem is Statelessness

King Abdullah II of Jordan revealed to the Times of London that the Obama administration may attempt a comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and the entire Muslim world. The latter would recognize Israel and grant El Al overflight rights. Israel in return would have to freeze settlement activity and move smartly toward a two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state, with Israeli settlers removed from the West Bank. The status of Jerusalem would be left for later negotiations.

Abdullah warned that if rapid progress is not made, another war will probably break out in the region within 18 months to two years.

In my view, the central problems in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the statelessness of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and in their diaspora, the continued military occupation or blockade by the Israelis, and the rapid expansion of Israeli colonies, which are usurping Palestinian land and rights.

Until the statelessness of the Palestinians is understood and seen as the central problem that it is, there can be no real progress on the issues. Statelessness was an attribute of slaves in premodern times. The Jews of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s were the primary victims of the crime of stripping people of their citizenship in a state. It is monstrous that Palestinians should be stateless all these decades after 1948. Make no mistake; it is Israel that deprived them of statehood, which the 1939 British White Paper pledged to them, and which other League of Nations Mandates, such as French Syria and Lebanon and British Iraq, achieved.

A stateless person ultimately has no rights, since it is states that guarantee rights. A stateless person may be robbed, raped, and sometimes even killed with impunity. Stateless children are often deprived of schooling. Since the property of the stateless is ambiguous with regard to its legal status, the stateless are at risk for extreme poverty. The contemporary world is a world of states, and falling between the cracks because you lack citizenship in any state is a guarantee of marginality and oppression.

Apologists try to shift the blame for Palestinian statelessness from Israel to someone else. But it won't work. The original tort of derailing Palestinian independence was Israel's, and Israel has been the main force preventing the declaration of a Palestinian state, so it is Israel that must step up here. Other countries cannot be expected to solve a problem created by the Israelis, nor do most of the countries in the region havethe economic efflorescence or governmental stability to do so.

It seems obvious what needs to be done to end Palestinian statelessness. If a Palestinian state isn't created in short order, the world is in for decades of Apartheid and political decay and consequent trouble, including terrorism and further wars. At the end of this process likely Israel will be forced to absorb the Palestinians as its own citizens, i.e. you end up with a one-state solution. The reason that there is more talk about the latter now is that it does at least resolve the central problem, of Palestinian statelessness, a problem that cannot be solved in any other way once a Palestinian state is forestalled by the massive Israeli colonization of the West Bank. (Actually I should say "Israeli and American," since a third of the Israeli squatters in the West Bank are Americans).

If Obama really is making this push for a comprehensive settlement, it is an enormous undertaking and its success is by no means assured (to say the least). He will have to be tough with Netanyahu and Lieberman, who will try to sabotage any such move. At least, the Obama administration is demonstrating some independence, and is no longer doing extensive advance briefings for Israeli officials on US diplomacy in the region.

End/ (Not Continued)

19 Comments:

At 6:05 AM, Blogger PhysicistDave said...

Isn’t a “one-state” solution really the only possible outcome long-term?

My understanding is that any credible “two-state” solution will leave quite a few Palestinians under Israeli sovereignty. And, of course, Palestinians will understandably continue to view all of historic Palestine as their homeland.

I’m not arguing against a “two-state” solution as a short-term stopgap. Perhaps, it can ratchet down tensions a bit and provide some short-term relief for Palestinians.

But I simply do not see how an apartheid Israel, which denies equal rights on the basis of religion or ethnicity, can survive long-term in an overwhelmingly Arab, Islamic region.

Long-term, either Israel ceases to be the “Jewish state,” or it will, it seems to me, cease to exist.

The only real choice that Israel seems to have long-term is whether to seek a “soft landing” or to pursue a course that will result in its catastrophic destruction.

It frankly seems to me that those who really care about Israeli Jews need to start thinking now about how to get them out safely, if Israel continues on its current course.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

 
At 6:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely right. The "peace" process is a diversion. The right of the Palestinians' self determination is absolute, and not a gift to be traded.

The soft Arab leaders are guilty of the appeasement which has led to this monstrous crime against the helpless Palestinian people. There should be no reward for the establishment of the State of Palestine, as it would give Israel the opportunity to waste time by haggling on the price.

Normalization will come later if Israel behaved as a civilized nation, not be forced on one side by the USA.

 
At 7:16 AM, Blogger profmarcus said...

maybe even the pope, an individual i don't trust as far as i can throw him, may be getting in on the act...Pope Benedict XVI called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian homeland immediately after he arrived in Israel Monday, a stance that could put him at odds with his hosts on a trip aimed at easing strains between the Vatican and Jews.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_re_mi_ea/pope_mideast

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

 
At 8:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The whirlwind of activity by this administration is amazing but I just don't believe that there is "the art of the possible" here. It's a waste of their time, really. And Professor, if you win land in a war, it's your land so your incessant references to "Israeli occupation" is so pedestrian.

 
At 8:52 AM, Blogger Will said...

I really hope that this will happen, but this is not the Israeli administration to try it in.

On the other hand, Israel's political capital is in the red these days, while Obama's is soaring. Hopefully this will start negotiations.

I remember King Abdullah saying in an interview with Newsweek that the situation in Palestine was about to get very nasty about 6 months before the latest bloody conflict started. In my mind, this this makes his estimates pretty accurate.

 
At 9:31 AM, Anonymous August West said...

How about this as an incentive for Israel to dismantle its settlements (or colonies, depending on your point of view) in the West Bank: For every Israeli settler who remains in the West Bank, one Palestinian gets to return to Israel proper (i.e., the Israel of the pre-1967 war borders).

Thus, if 300,000 Israeli colonists remain in the West Bank, then 300,000 Palestinians get to return to Israel proper. Further, these Palestinians will have to compensate the Israelis whose properties they appropriate (or reclaim, depending on your point of view) to the same extent Israel compensated the Palestinians on whose land the settlements are located.

I suspect that faced with this choice, Israel would suddenly discover a way to dismantle its West Bank settlements at warp speed.

 
At 9:34 AM, Blogger Econoclast said...

> If Obama really is making this push for a comprehensive settlement, it is an enormous undertaking and its success is by no means assured (to say the least). He will have to be tough with Netanyahu and Lieberman, who will try to sabotage any such move.<

which Lieberman is that? Joseph or Avigdor? or both? ;-)

Jim Devine

 
At 10:46 AM, Blogger Paul Eedle said...

Isn't the idea of a regional solution imaginative, though? One way Obama can make Israelis - and Americans - accept the need for concessions for peace is to put the Arab-Israeli conflict in a much bigger context.

 
At 11:24 AM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

It would be nice if the Israelis would admit that Arabs are people, too.

 
At 11:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hate to be pessimistic, but in looking at the history and the momentum of events, it is possible to put together one of these infamous "narratives" about how things will unfold under the above scenario.

The challenge, to see things unfold differently, will be to the will and raw creativity of Team Obama and the various MENA players. In addition, the news of how Dennis Ross, with his checkered history, visited the area without reporting in to Bennie etal, does bode well.

The underlying problem with the US presuming to have a genuinely positive impact on a lasting peace, has been the previously unthinkable attitude of approaching the situation in an even-handed manner, a thought that has historically made the Israeli establishment, and their likudnik benefactors in the US, apoplectic.

The MOMENTUM here, at best, is for Israel to finally be backed into a corner where they are forced to sign something and commit to some plan, in exchange for an ENORMOUS amount of money from the US and others. Then, problems will arise with withdrawals from the West Bank. To be sure, it will not be their problem and there will be nothing to be done about it. The failure to do so will be laid at the feet of Yassar Arafat. Whoops....he's dead; but there will someone to blame. At the moment, Iran seems handy, but we will see. Fact is, the West Bank Settlers are not going to leave. They were given that land by GOD, and who does the US think it is to even bring such a subject up? And against that sort of entitlement, what sort of force is going to prevail? And what would be the ends to which they would go to keep what is theirs by such title? And it isn't as though there are only a few crazies in this camp, or that they aren't supported to some degree by a lot of people not quite so adamant. Or that the new govt does not implicitly condone or explicitly support them.

No. This whole article/vision is far-fetched. It's a noble venture, and it could back Israel into showing its teeth and true nature to the world. But it is not going to change its inherent nature.

The 2-state solution was once a reasonable idea, but those days are long gone. The only reasonable and somewhat positive solution will unfold in some "narrative" I have trouble imagining, where the sane Jews of the world get fed up with the people who are and have been running things in Israel. If money and support from these people in the US dries up, so will the Israel establishments attitude. Maybe; but that still won't include the settlers. But this is the support that needs to be withdrawn to have some chance. And this support is that of the US Jewish community, as well as the formal US govt.

The FAR MORE likely Israeli response to scenario given in this article, if it gains traction, will be to simply wait out the 4-8 years of Obama, until they can get someone more amenable elected. Think of the problem of Bush/Baker/Madrid, and how it was solved, with a little creativity and patience, with Clinton/Oslo. Same song, second verse.

 
At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Dan said...

Apologists try to shift the blame for Palestinian statelessness from Israel to someone else. But it won't work. The original tort of derailing Palestinian independence was Israel'sIn 1947-48 it was the Arabs who derailed independence. I was also under the impression that Egypt and Jordan were the ones who derailed independence between '49 and '67. My facts might be a bit off, and certainly Israel has been the prime culprit since the beginning of the occupation, but is it fair to call her the original owner of this mess?

 
At 1:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/11/headlines#12

May 11, 2009

Israel Has Secret Plan to Thwart Division of Jerusalem
By Amy Goodman

The Israeli government and settler organizations are secretly working to surround East Jerusalem with nine national parks, pathways and sites, drastically altering the geography of the city and to strengthen Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it, a move not recognized by the international community. The Guardian newspaper reports, * under an eight-year plan, a series of nine national parks, trails and tourist sites based on apparent Jewish historical spots would be established, most under the control of settler groups working together with the Israeli government. The sites would also create a link to Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. The Israeli organization Peace Now says the secret plan for East Jerusalem might prevent the ability to reach a two-state solution.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/10/israel-expansion-east-jerusalem

 
At 1:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/world/middleeast/10jerusalem.html

May 10, 2009

Parks Fortify Israel’s Claim to Jerusalem
By ETHAN BRONNER and ISABEL KERSHNER

A $100 million effort to develop parks and gardens outside the Old City of Jerusalem may strengthen Israeli claims to the land.


http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/05/ethan-bronner-does-not-even-try-to-hide.html

May 11, 2009

Ethan Bronner does not even try to hide his biases anymore

"In other words, while the Israeli narrative that guides the government plan focuses largely — although not exclusively — on Jewish history and links to the land, the Palestinian narrative heightens tensions, pushing the Israelis into a greater confrontational stance." *

* http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/world/middleeast/10jerusalem.html

-- As'ad AbuKhalil

 
At 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, one really big problem is that Israel is not fully democratic the way, say, Egypt or Iran are. What Israel needs is a spate of US style democracy building which was so successful in Iraq. Yes, that would make things better.

 
At 1:45 AM, Blogger Austin M. Kramer said...

Psychological Statelessness

The reason the current "Two State Solution" has failed to materialize for 50 years is because it is actually a "No State Solution." Statehood is more than just land enclosed by invisible lines, it is a psychological condition.

As it stands today, both Israelis and Palestinians live in constant uncertainty about the existence of their states, and as a result, they are both stateless. In order to create successfully states, we need to address the problems that undermine them: Security, Stability, and Respect.

Security and Statelessness

We should not forget, that Israel is also in a state of psychological statelessness. Although America thinks that it has been helpful to Israel by providing funding and weapons for its defense, this influx of military aid has contributed to a deep-rooted siege mentality that dominates the Israeli world view.

If you live in fear of losing your state, whether the threat is real or imagined, then you are stateless. I believe that it is key to steer the negotiations away from "mutual recognition" and towards "mutual security." If we can de-escalate the military situation in the Levant, and give assurances all around that there will be no military invasions, then the question of "recognition" will become an eventuality that can be solved far later down the road.

Stability and Statelessness

But why is it so hard to get everyone to put down their guns and agree not to kill each other? I would argue that the reason is because, as they stand today, neither state is viable. It is inconceivable that in another 50 years both Israel and Palestine will exist exactly as they do today. Although either side may feel they have won the battle, neither side feels they have won they war, so they continue to prepare for future battles.

The key to resolving this militarized insecurity is to create stability. An issue I have not seen anyone address, however, is that currently, and in almost all serious "Two State Solutions" neither Israel nor Palestine have territorial integrity, and that is a major obstacle to stability. Palestinian territories are broken in half, which has produced a schizophrenic political atmosphere where the split personalities of Hammas and Fatah violently countermand each other at every turn. Israel also has a territorial integrity problem. Israeli settlements and important Jewish cultural areas lie isolated inside Palestinian territories. Many of Israel's contentious and aggressive moves have been made in efforts to connect its settlements with the main body of the Israeli state. Neither Israel nor Palestine can exist as some kind of national archipelago. Palestinians lay seige to the settlements as Israel lays siege to Gaza. As we have seen most vividly in Gaza, if a portion of a proposed state can be isolated, it can be crushed.

Before either Israel or Palestine can feel secure in their statehood, I believe that fixed and stable borders need to be negotiated. What is more, for these borders to be stable, they need to have all the territory of each state be contiguous, and each state must share a land border with at least two countries, so that each will have an equal footing from which to connect with the outside world.

Respect and Statelessness

The final element of psychological statelessness is respect. There was once a chance that the Palestinian Authority could eventually become a state, when it held open elections for its government. Unfortunately, when the election results favored Hammas, a party unpopular with western countries, Israel and America took actions to strangle the nascent Palestinian government. This is not an isolated incident: America's history of attempting to micromanage "democratic" governments in smaller countries has certainly not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world. If the election results and policy decisions of a nation must be rubber-stamped by a regional hegemon, then it is impossible for the people of that country to believe that they genuinely have a state. Sovereignty is a question of not merely international respect, but the ability to respect yourself. In this way, too, Israel must be all too keenly aware of its strategic dependence on America, which erodes its own sense of genuine sovereignty and independence.

The only way to have two genuine states is if they can learn to accept that their governments will from time to time disagree, and that disagreement is not cause for war. It seems that today Israel is waiting for a "Pro-Israel" Palestinian state, and that Palestinians are demanding a "Pro-Palestine" Israel. Neither is likely to exist in the near future. If Israel can conduct its affairs without the approval of Palestine, and Palestine can conduct its affairs without the approval of Israel, then it becomes possible for them to come together in friendship. But as long as there is an unequal relationship of power between the two, they will all be stateless.

 
At 10:51 AM, Blogger Michael Pollak said...

Great post. Most of the comments are about the 1 vs. 2 state solution. But for me the real point of the post is that rock bottom of the problem is statelessness and whatever the solution, that's what must be solved. I don't think I've ever heard it put quite that way, but it's so rhetorically perfect it's hard to believe I haven't. It translates it into terms that are architypally western -- citizenship and rights -- and thus easy for any westerner to support (in fact almost impossible not to). And you then show how at the bottom of them is a state, which is the term liberalism is always a little afraid of. And then you give a great short evocative list of what radical things are missing from your life if you don't have a state. Well done. A great combination of exhortation and political science.

One minor friendly amendment in re King Hussein's mooted plan. It may be all bushwah of course; it may be him floating what he wishes would be the plan. But if there's any truth to it, it's interesting to look at this suggestion by Henry Siegman that it's probably better to launch such projects when right wingers are in power in Israel than when the center-left is:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070814.html

His argument is NOT that only Nixon can go to China or that Sharon can make peace. He heaps scorn on that idea. His argument is rather that the virtue of right wing governments is precisely that they cannot accept any part of a real peace proposal, and for that reason it can be made forcefully and clear and developed. And then left publicly announced in such a way as to provide the framework that the next liberal government will have to take as a starting point. Whereas if liberals are in power when we launch a plan, they always get sympathy in Washington for their electoral difficulties, and we always end up weakening the plan at their request until it's nothing but loopholes and not worth pursuing.

Of course it could be just a knowledgeable man desperately looking for a silver lining. But I thought it was interesting and original enough to be worth mentioning.

 
At 10:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We should not forget, that Israel is also in a state of psychological statelessness. Although America thinks that it has been helpful to Israel by providing funding and weapons for its defense, this influx of military aid has contributed to a deep-rooted siege mentality that dominates the Israeli world view.

If you live in fear of losing your state, whether the threat is real or imagined, then you are stateless."

I do not have the slightest idea what this means, beyond being unwilling to understand that Israel is a rapacious state intent of gobbling up every possible Palestinian home.

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

fwiw, When you fly over ISRAEL and look down what you see doesn't jibe with any notion of "two nations" or "two peoples" living in constant conflict, etc. Rather, it is an incredibly dense populated place, with no apparent separation between "people-types", or visible vestiges of historical animus, or Biblical Land legacies or anything like what we envision in our mind's eye, whatsoever. Seeing WHOLE ISRAEL in this way is rather like experiencing in microcosm some kind of cosmic fractal-effect phenomenon, just like that first sight we had of the WHOLE EARTH; one has that selfsame rush of realization: how utterly absurd is this notion of "nation"... how laughably arbitrary would be any constructs of "States", for God's sake.

 
At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is easy to tell others to give peace a chance. Harder when your life may be on the line.

Let say, for whatever reason the Palestinains get a state, then they start lobbing rockets over the border into Israel because some Palestinians want all the land for one Greater Palestine. What would you accept as a "reasonable" reaction?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home