Obama and Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
President Barack Obama says he will be more honest than past presidents with Israel. Israel, a great friend of the United States and a country we like and admire on its merits, has nevertheless dug itself into a very deep hole with its determination to colonize the West Bank and to keep the Palestinians stateless. These policies are what is wrong, not anything essential about Israel or the Palestinians. Both peoples deserve to live in peace and with dignity and human rights and without fear of violence. But that ideal situation cannot come about unless Israel comes to terms with a simple fact: It will never be accepted in the region and will never really be secure, unless and until it stops depriving the Palestinians of their resources, their land, and their right to be citizens of a recognized state. (And, no, it cannot be Jordan, either). Not only is Israel hurting itself with this reckless drive to colonize others' land and so rob them, but it is deeply harming US interests in the Muslim World. Why would a friend do that to us--harm itself and harm us? Israeli settlement policy is the Amy Winehouse of foreign affairs.
Obama has already ruffled the feathers of Israeli hawks by forthrightly asking for an end to the building of new settlements, and a freeze on the growth of existing ones. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is insisting that "natural growth" must be allowed in the existing settlements, but this stance is widely considered a ruse intended to allow for settlement expansion through relocating people, not just having babies. Obama is not falling for it, and continues to argue for a settlement freeze.
This is what I said at CBS about what Obama should tell the Muslim world on Thursday:
' In order to make a genuine and lasting impact, Obama needs to tell the Muslim world that the long years in the desert for the Palestinian people are over and that he will devote his energies to ensuring the establishment of a viable Palestinian state by the end of his first term. No one in the region believes in the so-called peace process any more, inasmuch as progress has been scant and the condition of the Palestinians has steadily worsened.'
In fact, I think Obama should make it clear that by 2011 he will simply recognize as the Palestinian state the government of the Palestine Authority that is elected next January. That would be an excellent way of forcing all the parties to make sure those elections are not handled carelessly. And it will put everyone into over-drive in making sure the transition goes well. I have been saying for some time what Ahmed Qurei recently did, that if the Israeli settlers want to stay in the West Bank, they must accept Palestinian citizenship. A government of Palestine that has Jewish constituents might anyway be a good thing.
Obama has an opportunity, through making sound and wise policy on this issue, to resolve 80 or 90% of the problems the US has with the Middle East. It looks as though he is going to give it his best shot.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/02/2009 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
27 Comments:
"In fact, I think Obama should make it clear that by 2011 he will simply recognize as the Palestinian state the government of the Palestine Authority that is elected next January."
It won't make much difference if that Palestinian state consists of territory that remains under Israeli military occupation.
Good thinking Dr. Cole. Thanks.
Your suggestion that Obama simply recognize Palestine as a country in 2011 if nothing else has worked by then, as Truman recognized Israel when it declared itself a country, is very encouraging. How does this work? Does the president need the consent of Congress?
I have no faith that Obama will ever say anything other than praise for Israel and their on-going extermination of a Palestinian existence.
Obama = Bush
at last a little intelligence!!! thank you.
thanks for restoring the clean simple and easy to read format, Prof Cole !!!
but more importantly thanks for blogging each and every day and sharing your expertise and experience.
i would read this blog if it were etched on a rock.
So what about the Palestinians and allies of Palestinians who genuinely do not accept that Palestine has ever a suitable place to put a Jewish homeland?
There was a non-Jewish majority when Herzl wrote that should have been able to veto the idea, there was a non-Jewish majority in 1948 that should have been able to veto the idea. Today, including refugees and Palestinians under Jewish control, there is a non-Jewish majority that should be able to veto the idea.
Given sovereignty, they will be able to effectively veto the idea of a Jewish state - which from there point of view would serve the cause of justice.
This is a serious structural problem with any conception of a two-state solution.
Further:
What does "great friend" mean? Israel makes the US position in Iraq more difficult. If not for Israel, a stable pro-US government in Iraq likely could have been accomplished without sanctions, an invasion or occupation. Israel convinces mainstream Muslims that harboring enemies of the United States is justifiable - which makes the US missions in Pakistan and Afghanistan vastly more complex and expensive. Israel causes the US to publicly support dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere. Israel's security needs drive the US position that Iran cannot be allowed to enrich uranium, despite Iran's clearly legal right to do so. And drives other costly anti-Iranian measures by the US.
It seems to me that Israel unambiguously makes US policy more difficult throughout its region, and nowhere makes it less difficult. "Friend" has a connotation of mutuality, but the US relationship with Israel is one in which the US devotes a huge amount of resources in many ways to its continuation and in return is given the opportunity to direct more resources towards Israel's continuation.
If the US recognizes a Palestinian government as a state, what would that change on the ground? Entry and exit would still be controlled by Israel both in the West Bank and Gaza. Water resources would still be under Israeli control. Israel would still hold Hamas elected parliamentarians in prison. Palestine would still be as powerless as now to protect Palestinians interests from either the Israeli government or Jewish settlers.
Other than one state, there is no solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. If the US insists that there must be a Jewish state, then US policy will face the difficulties it faces today.
The US problem in the region has never been that the US had taken the wrong tone in supporting a Jewish state. The problem has always, from the modern inception of Zionism, been that a Jewish state in Palestine is incompatible with the rights of the Palestinians and thereby the sensibilities of Arabs and Muslims throughout the region and the world.
I'll believe it when it happens. President Obama does not stand up to bankers or demand concessions from them in return for hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. He only does that with the auto workers of Detroit. If he can't get tough with the bankers, I doubt he is going to take on Israel.
Israelis realize, or most of them do, that they cannot have all three of:
- A majority-Jewish state
- Control of all of the territory that was the British Palestine mandate
- A democracy
but they seem to be schizophrenic about which one they are willing to give up.
"Israel, a great friend of the United States and a country we like and admire on its merits, has nevertheless dug itself into a very deep hole with its determination to colonize the West Bank and to keep the Palestinians stateless."
Are we supposed to admire Israel's devastating use of military force in places like Lebanon and Gaza? Or their virtual police state control over the occupied territories? Or their uncanny ability to prevent any formal diplomatic recognition and discourse about their nuclear stockpile? How about it being a sectarian state?
"Never again" is appropriate for world Jewry and the millions of other innocents killed by the Nazis, but it is not appropriate as a rallying cry by a tiny, militaristic, aggressive, dispassionate, sectarian country that lives solely by its own rules.
Israel exploits duplicity.
Israel's leaders won't say if it seeks a one-state solution or a two-state solution because Israel is covertly working for the zero-state solution, i.e., to expel all Palestinians.
Obama must make two things clear to Israel.
(1) If the occupied territories are part of Israel, then all people living there in 2008 are voting citizens of Israel, but if the occupied territories are not part of Israel, then Israel must withdraw, completely, unless the stragglers wish to become Palestinian Jews as you suggest, and leave control over all aspects of the land, roads, railroads, air, airports, airwaves, sea, ports, waterways, wells, irrigation, communication, newspapers, road checkpoints, military, and any other aspect of Palestine the Palestinians would control, to which ever leaders Palestine elects.
(2) There will be no discussion of Iran's nuclear ambitions until Israel states how many warheads it possesses, signs the NPT and commences a reduction in its nuclear arsenal open to international inspectors.
Anything less is just more of the same.
Uri Avnery provides us with the reality of Israel, what its actual intentions are, by pointing out that "This week, the Knesset voted by a large majority (47 to 34) for a law that threatens imprisonment for anyone who dares to deny that Israel is a Jewish and Democratic State," and then details how the law is designed to operate.
The bill is proof that the Zionists are no different from US settlers's attitude that the Only Good Injun is a Dead Injun, that they have zero intentions of sharing Palestine--They want all of it for themselves and have always said so, and their behavior says they mean what they say. For such people, there is no quarter or compromise; either total victory or total defeat--Just like Hitler. And Obama's words will mean nothing as long as billions of dollars continue to flow to the world's most undeserving and second most terroristic country.
the usual mode of 'freezing' a settlements expansion is to build a large wall around the settlement well outside its current boundries - and then build within that.
These polcies are what is wrong, not anything essential about Israel or the Palestinians. Both peoples deserve to live in peace and with dignity and human rights and without fear of violence.That is an absurd comment. The Israelis are an expansionist colonial power. They are not natives of the region. They are by and large of European descent and exist there by force; by choice, the vast, vast majority of the inhabitants want Israel gone, not out of hatred of Judaism or "anti-semitism" but by virtue (or lack thereof) of their abhorrent and obscene (Sabra and Shatila?) behavior. Israel is an illegitimate state founded on prior British illegitimacy. Let's call it what it is: theft, genocide and delusions of divinely-given landownership. Or are we to be mealy-mouthed, unable to say what is right and what is wrong?
I am disappointed, Professor Cole.
"These policies are what is wrong, not anything essential about Israel or the Palestinians."
For the most part I agree, but I do see a fundamental contradiction between Israel as a "democracy" and Israel as a "Jewish state." As long as Israel continues to be a specifically Jewish state it cannot be truly democratic, especially not with population trends showing that there will eventually be an Arab majority.
"Obama has already ruffled the feathers of Israeli hawks by forthrightly asking for an end to the building of new settlements, and a freeze on the growth of existing ones. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is insisting that 'natural growth' must be allowed in the existing settlements..."
The basic problem here is that there is no justification for "natural growth" in settlements that are illegal in the first place. They shouldn't be there at all, so growing them for ANY reason only makes the problem worse.
"In fact, I think Obama should make it clear that by 2011 he will simply recognize as the Palestinian state the government of the Palestine Authority that is elected next January. That would be an excellent way of forcing all the parties to make sure those elections are not handled carelessly."
It may also make both Israel and Fatah inclined to find some excuse not to allow Hamas to be on the ballot, since Hamas won the last election in 2006 (which Israel, Fatah, and the Bush II administration promptly decided to ignore -- apparently they only believe in democracy when it gives them what they want). Expect lots of voter intimidation and fraud, too.
Obama has already ruffled the feathers of Israeli hawks by forthrightly asking for an end to the building of new settlements, and a freeze on the growth of existing ones.
Doesn't every president do that. Then the Israeli PM accepts, then he dies (coma considered dead by me) before the deal can be consummated. Does Netanyahu know about this tradition?
I hope you're right about Obama being serious, but to me it just looks like old wine in new bottles.
As for Obama's "arguing" for a settlement freeze, Fred Reed put it better than I could:
>>Headline: “Israel Dismisses US Demand on Settlements.” I guess that doesn’t leave much doubt about who controls Washington. Israel, being utterly dependent on the United States for its existence, is the one country that Washington should be able to dictate to. If the US were an independent country, and told the Knesset to wear tutus and toe shoes, in ten minutes they’d be grunting their way through Swan Lake.<<
What I don't understand about the whole issue of a Palestinian state is why it has to be "granted" by Israel? Take Gaza: Israel doesn't claim the territory, is not occupying it, and controls its airspace and borders by way of the Oslo accords signed with the now-defunct PLO. So what's to stop the Hamas government from composing a catchy national anthem, getting some local Betsy Ross to sew up a flag, filling out the paperwork at the UN and saying, "OK, we are now the Islamic Republic of Gaza" or whatever?
Who gets to decide who is a "state"? The UN General Assembly? The Security Council? I don't see how Israel has any legal claim to decide who is a state and who isn't. Can Israel declare that France is not a state?
Forgive my ignorance on this issue, but I've just never understood this point.
Juan, Obama needs to recognise the governmentthat the *Palestinians* elect, not that the West chooses for them. That is, after all, what democracy is about. If Hamas areelected again, then so be it, Let us not make the people of Palestine suffer again just because we don't like their choice of government.
-Pink
If this is not the beginning of a new world of peace..... It brings tears to my eyes, tears of joy and hope. I am so glad I voted the way I did last November.
The reason I mentioned pressuring Israel to show its "nuclear hand" as well as forcing it to take one position or the other on occupied Palestine is that Israel uses the implied threat of nuclear attack on Iran to prevent Iran from developing nuclear energy.
Israel's ambition is to dominate the Near East and a prosperous Iran would be an economic rival. Just as Israel's war of opportunity on Lebanon was economic (water), and it's so-called defensive occupation of Palestine is economic (water and land), Israel's opposition to Iran is economic.
It's all about money.
BTW, abu_aardvark is now http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/
Not that I had anything to do with it.
Juan:
That was so perfectly put and so simple. The most elegant solutions are frequently so simple.
"Obama has an opportunity, through making sound and wise policy on this issue, to resolve 80 or 90% of the problems the US has with the Middle East."
Mr. Cole, would you be so kind as to clarify (or retract) this statement? Are you really saying that our invasion of Iraq (among many other issues) only accounts for 10-20% of "the problems the US has with the Middle East."
I am also curious when you state that Israel is "a great friend of the United States and a country we like and admire on its merits", what are you referring to? Our joint military oppression of Arabs nations? And soon possibly Iran?
The problem we can't have two state is that it doesn't really make sense. Israel has to be one state, and model of inter-racial/religion harmony in the middle east. Anything else is simply continuation of Colonialist policies that brought so much misery.
As a first step may be Palestinians should take a lead. Declare state in all of the west bank and Gazs, then grant full citizenship rights to every settler that wishes to live t here.
Mohammed Zahir , I agree 100%. But do not forget that prof. Cole's state are virtually the same as Israel - a settler colonialist one. Only USA was able to kill the majority of natives.
Good post, Juan. Unfortunately some of your readers are still stuck in the mythology of Israel as a white, colonialist state instead of what it really is - a nation of refugees and children of refugees (many from the Arab world).
Until the rest of the world learns to play nice with the Jews, Israel's going to need to remain a Jewish state.
"Israeli settlement policy is the Amy Winehouse of foreign affairs."
Brilliant. Thank you Professor Cole. I have named this the Quote of the Decade, and will use it often. (With proper attribution, of course, and with no view for profit.)
Post a Comment
<< Home