Israel/Palestine: What would be a (sufficiently) just and viable peace?

Great Debates
21

Just to add to Collounsbury, he has pointed elsewhere out that land ownership was a rather tenuous affair in pre-1947 Israel. The Jews may have only owned a fraction of the land, but LarryDL’s conclusion that the Palestinians owned the rest is not necessarily applicable. If I read Collounsbury’s previous posts on this topic correctly, there was a lot of ownership by Ottoman owners while the Palestinians were tenant farmers. There was a situation in flux after the British took the mandate from the Turks. Adding to this is the rather embryonic state of Palestinian nationalism in 1947. There was never a Palestinian state created and there were no widespread calls for Palestinian statehood until 1967. There is also much truth to the claim that many of the Arabs in Israel left voluntarily in the 1948 wars, as those who stayed are now Israelis with full Israeli rights.

The most just solution takes the population spread right now and deals with that. Not what happened 54 years ago – there were injustices on each side. As Coll points out, to ignore injustice on the Arab side while focusing on the Israeli ones is completely unfair. How about the widespread calls for Jewish genocide in 1948? If you want to throw UN declarations around, why did the Arab nations choose to violate the UN declaration 181 declaring Israel an independent, sovereign nation? It was only their violation of that UN declaration in 1948 and again (basically) in 1967 that created UN declaration 242 and has led Israel to occupy lands and therefore ‘break’ UN declaration 181 itself. You can’t just pick and choose. The reason that this is such a huge problem is because both sides have a legitimate, justifiable cause.

The most just solution must therefore be based on the fact that there are 5 million people considering themselves to be Israelis on land roughly equivalent to 1967 borders. 12% or so of these are Arab with mostly no interest in becoming Palestinians. There are 5 million people on land next door to that who consider themselves Palestinian. They deserve a homeland as well, but they have no more inalienable rights (nor fewer) than the Israelis. The populations are mostly equivalent now. To repartition based on demographics of 54 years ago is ridiculous. To advocate the creation of Palestine at the expense of Israeli statehood is one step away from pushing ethnic cleansing or genocide (as that is the near most probable result).

My opinions – that of separation (unilateral at first if necessary) and creation of a viable Palestine on the West Bank and Gaza – is the opinions of most of the Israeli public. Apart from David Weman’s above “Heh, not that close,” I have never found one source claiming that it isn’t close to what was offered between Camp David II and the Taba negotiations of winter 2000. The intifada shattered the hopes of many Israelis for a peaceful coexistence between Palestine and Israel, but that hope is slowly coming back. Apart from the right-wing nuts (and there are right-wing nuts everywhere), Israel supports an independent Palestine, and any coalition government must have that policy on the table (hence it is part of the Sharon platform, albeit in a mutated form).

As for US aid, yeah sure we give a bunch of money to Israel and a bunch of military aid. But we give more to Egypt. We give a tremendous amount to Jordan. If the US pulled its aid, Israel would have to scrimp and save, for sure. US aid amounts to around 5% IIRC of the operating budget of Israel. But Israel wouldn’t fall. It wouldn’t change anything about the Israeli army being one of the world’s most developed, trained, and technologically advanced fighting forces. Israel would fight an ugly defensive war, but there is no way the Arab states could fight an offensive war against Israel without losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and eventually, if a nuclear option was taken, millions of civilians. The Arab states know this and that is why there has been relative silence for 29 years.

22

edwino wrote:
*You can’t just pick and choose. The reason that this is such a huge problem is because both sides have a legitimate, justifiable cause.

The most just solution must therefore be based on the fact that there are 5 million people considering themselves to be Israelis on land roughly equivalent to 1967 borders. 12% or so of these are Arab with mostly no interest in becoming Palestinians. There are 5 million people on land next door to that who consider themselves Palestinian. They deserve a homeland as well, but they have no more inalienable rights (nor fewer) than the Israelis. The populations are mostly equivalent now. To repartition based on demographics of 54 years ago is ridiculous. To advocate the creation of Palestine at the expense of Israeli statehood is one step away from pushing ethnic cleansing or genocide (as that is the near most probable result). *
I agree with you. As with the US’s native population, the past is unjust, but it is the past. (As I told a Tlingit woman of my acquaintance, “I’m sorry, but we’re not going back. Where would we go?”) Sabra and Chantilla are bitter memories, as are Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, but nothing can be done about any of them now.
I agree that Israel has a right to exist. However, the prevalent implication that Israel has done all that it could to respect the rights of the Palestinians and to deal with them justly tends to make me some extremist, and I didn’t intend that. A Palestinian state has a right to exist (and not in three separate chunks surrounded by Israel, as was proposed at Camp David) and in the interim, Palestinians should be free of the threat of torture, of being stopped just because they’re Palestinians and thrown into jail for up to six months without being charged or convicted of a crime.

23

Just a little off the OP.

So whats “fair” Squish? You should read your sig line.

15% of Isreals population is of Arab decent and they are mostly muslum. These Arab’s enjoy citizenship, voting rights, some hold elected office, some own businesses, their children are educated, they are allowed to worship as they see fit and they can come and go as they please. Its amazing that they choose to stay in Isreal when they could move to, well lets see, you can take your pick of a number of dictatorship/thugs that surround Isreal.

As far as U.S. support of Isreal, I believe your right that eventualy Isreal would get crushed under what would be a never ending assault by its Arab neighbors. Thats why I’m pro-Isreali. The Arab states would not stop until Isreal is crushed and every Jew has been killed or has fled. Its the only thing the Arab world can agree on. Well other than the belief that the U.S. is the great satan. Despite the fact that in the last 10 years or so the U.S. has gone to war 3 times to protect muslums. We liberated Kuwait, bombed the shit out of Slobadon, and kicked the shit out of the Taliban.

I support the everyday “Joe Public” Palestinian that just wants to have a family, and have the chance to support them, educate them, and worship with them. The PA has led the Palestinians down a path of misery. Now to be fair I don’t think that Arafat has control over the various factions. But again to be fair thats why he isn’t a leader that Isreal can negotiate with.

Back to the OP.

I think Isreal should give the Gaza Strip back to Egypt, the Westbank back to Jordan (I don’t think either country wants then back) and lets see how these Arab nations deal with their “brothers”.

24

We got hosed, Tommy, we got hosed. The Likud voted on a resolution not to grant a state of Palestine.

Guess the invasion of Iraq will be postponed indefinitely.

25

Bah, I disagree capacitor. The Likud vote is widely being recognized for exactly what it is: an unfortunate display of political infighting and clamoring for power. Bibi and Arik going at it in political fisticuffs.

I maintain that Likud may be able to win a plurality but won’t be able to put together a government based on that platform. Especially a national unity government. Even if by some miracle Bibi can put together a government with a no Palestinian state plank on the platform, this will quickly erode under a mountain of foreign pressures.

Sharon is right on the matter. He agrees that there needs to be a Palestinian state. The formation of a Palestinian state right now would be an exercise in futility – it would neither improve the situation of Israelis nor Palestinians. Israelis wouldn’t get security or a partner in peace. Palestinians would get representation and self-determination in name only. Under Arafat, I can’t imagine them having a startling increase in political voice in a representative government.

The policy of Israel will have to follow that line, at least while unity governments are necessary (i.e. until the violence calms down a bit). Even if the most extreme Likudnik is elected, you won’t see much deviation from the line. After all, in Bibi Episode I, while you did have the nefarious expansion of settlements, you also had the Wye River accords. Only Nixon can go to China, eh?

26

Yes. And no.

My understanding of the issue is that land ownership in terms of legal registers was the typical mess one finds in 3rd world countries to this day.

E.g. in re economic development one reads quite a lot about giving title to land of the actual inhabitants of the land.

It appears to me that as in other areas of the ‘pre-modern’ world one had parallel sets of ‘ownership’ – the legal fiats of the controllers of violence, that is the Ottoman (be they Turks, Egyptians, Lebs, Syrians, etc.) lords, and the traditional tribal/familial holdings. Sometimes of course the two are the same. Often they aren’t. Add to this the less-than-rigourous land registries where feudal lords (as in Europe) could and did manipulate the written record to extend ‘legal’ holding over others lands…

A mess.

The point being that Jewish settlers could buy land that was not --in our modern sense-- justly the land of the seller to sell. It helps explain the disconnect between Palestinian perceptions of rights and the Israeli story. In a sad way, they’re both right and both wrong.

27

edwino, I am actually more optimistic than I have been for quite a while. The response/strike in Gaza was ?delayed, scaled back, cancelled? because various Arab countries told Sharon that they were pressuring Arafat to deliver on the cessation of terror and that a response would hamper their efforts. And Sharon held fire. Now Sharon is put in a position were his political future rests on delivering Israeli security and he has placed himself squarely in the camp that says that some kind of Palestinian state is required to deliver it longterm. Bibi has the far rightest camp so Sharon, of all people, has to play to the middle. (Like you said, only Nixon could …) But he only has so much time.

Both Sharon and Arafat are under pressure to deliver. Something positive might really occur.

28

Sharon as a Nixon (or, more aptly a De Gaulle)…ARE YOU ON CRACK?
Surely you recognize that Sharon will never really accept a Palestinian state? (Other than enclaves ruled by puppets to Israel which the Palestinians would obviously never accept)

29

Furthermore, there won’t be some other de Gaulle. The Israeli political establishment will continue to be completely paralyzed and reactive.

30

Furthermore, no one else will become a de Gaulle. The Israeli political establishment will continue to be completely paralyzed and strictly reactive.

31

Mods, could you delete the 11:28 post, please?

32

No, I’ve never tried crack. Thanks for asking though.

33

Well, thanks for replying. But, do you recognize that Sharon will never really accept a Palestinian state?
Edwino, could you also reply, pretty please?

34

Two part answer. He probably won’t because the state that he would find acceptable and the one that Arafat would find acceptable are very different things. But he wouldn’t deal Bibi such a good hand with the hard right base of the Likud if he wasn’t believing that some state might be that he could sign on to. He is now forced to play to mainstream of Israel, which is willing to give a lot in return for the security that is a true and lasting peace. But, no, he won’t give up all the settlements, or give a Palestinian Right to Return, or give total control of the Temple Mount to the Arabs, or sign on to a state that has military capabilities, or without ironclad certainties of security. (neither would most of the mainstream Israeli public) And Arafat would demand all of the first batch and is unable to provide the last item. So there probably won’t be much of a test as to whether or not he would accept a state. But I take whatever cause for optimism I can get!

35

Would Sharon accept a state?

Short winded answer: Well, if you believe his word, he would. As to what incarnation that state would be, it is hard to say.

Long winded answer:

If Sharon wants to keep a unity government in place, which is probably necessary to keep him in power, he has to concede the idea of having a state.

Sharon can worry about Bibi as much as he wants. But his threat doesn’t come from Bibi in the long run. In the long run, he represents Likud, who has to fend off the 50% of Israelis more left-wing than it more than the nuts who are more right-wing. Think of the Republican moderates versus the Conservative Coalition Republicans and the Republicans versus the Democrats.

Sharon went and did a foolish thing for his long-run power prospects – he went and (at least temporarily) won a war on terror. He neutralized a Palestinian threat. Yeah, it remains to be seen how it will work in the long run, especially if you buy the hazy line about Palestinian oppression leading to terror. http://www.slate.com has a thought provoking essay here. There are a number of things in that essay that I disagree with, but the general point I think is valid. Short-term security has been mostly acquired. Suicide bombings are down from once a day to once a month. Like any democratic society, Israelis have a short memory and get war-weary. After a few months of calm, there will be lots and lots more calls for negotiation, even though the Palestinians really had little to do with the recent upswing in security.

As much as I don’t like some of his policies, Sharon has some very good, undeniable points. He is kind of like a John McCain of Israel – McCain is waaaay too right-wing for me, but I think I could vote for the man just because he is saying things (loudly) that neither side particularly wants to hear, but neither side can particularly ignore. Military options can offer a short-term solution to terrorism. A Palestinian state with 100% of power in Arafat is not a legitimate solution for either Israel or the Palestinians. Arab leaders need to be actively involved in the process, far more than the US or the EU. And Arab leaders need to actively denounce terror and guide the Palestinians away from targeting innocent civilians, instead of giving tacit approval or outright support. It would make everyone more healthy in the long term.

Sharon knows the carrot and stick routine. He just hasn’t had much reason to take out the carrots. But he has – as DSeid points out, he didn’t invade Gaza, partially because Arafat arrested some Hamas people and Arab leaders pressured Arafat to do more.

Sharon is also right about a Palestinian state being the end process of a series of negotiations. Israel needs clear signs that the Palestinians will live with a negotiated, not a military settlement. Israel needs clear signs of increased security before handing out that large carrot, a Palestinian state. And it should be a Palestinian state in the true sense, not just Arafat’s playground. Israel will make painful concessions if it can see that the Palestinians will do the same. This is the way that negotiations work, after all.

The actual borders, the final status of Jerusalem, the final settlement on refugees are all things that are negotiation points. Mostly they exist entirely in the minds of Israeli politicians. Barak put forth his proposal, which was rejected without counter-offer. Sharon has sketched his, which was laughed at all around. The only offers coming out of the Palestinian side are somewhere between the PA “all of the 1967 land, all of Jerusalem, 4.6 million refugees resettled within Israel at Israeli expense with compensation to Arab states for housing them since 1948” and the extremist push the Jews into the sea or kill 'em all. Obviously even the “moderate” PA proposal is as ludicrous as Sharon’s idea. As Sharon has said, it is the end product of a negotiated settlement. I think what he means by this is that the Palestinians are free to start with their “moderate” proposal and the Israelis are free to start with Sharon’s ideas. The actual incarnation depends on the multitude of carrots, sticks, incentives, disincentives, cooperation, antagonism, trust, and deceit that lies in between. Palestinians take up non-violent protest, become model citizens, reign in extremist views, become a peace-loving, moderate people, and I honestly believe Israelis would be more than happy to have an international Jerusalem and a Palestine on 1967 land with a 1:1 swap of annexed settlements and Eretz Yisroel and a generous settlement on refugees. Keep up the terrorism, keep up the antagonism, build no trust, and there won’t be a viable, recognizable Palestine any time soon.

36

I can think of some differences between Sharon and McCain, for example that Sharon is fucking evil.

37

Fucking evil? You can’t make that accusation without any type of argument to back it up. Sure, he has done some unsavory things, but he has been acquited of direct involvement in Sabra and Shatilla, he has won a lawsuit against Time magazine after they called him a war criminal, etc. Sure, he has some policies that you may not agree with, but there is really no ground to call him evil, at least compared with the leaders of all of Israel’s neighbors.

38

Sharon is having sex with Arafat!?! Call The Enquirer! (Do you have photos?)