I am busy today (as I was yesterday). To give you something to contemplate, I offer this interesting essay on the above subject. pl
RSS- Habemus Papam!
- Kashmir crisis live: India missile attack kills eight; Pakistan official says two Indian fighter jets shot down
- The Art of Dealing With Trump
- “We cannot be held responsible for what happens on the territory of the Russian Federation”
- ARMY’S FIRST MOBILE BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM PREPARES FOR JRTC
- DOE: Eleven Big Wins for Nuclear in Trump Administration’s First 100 Days
- “How Russian motorcycle storm troopers became a headache for the Armed Forces of Ukraine”
- “Trump and Zelenskiy meet one-on-one in Vatican basilica to seek Ukraine peace”
- China says Trump’s trade optimism is all talk
- The vicious rivalries tearing apart Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon
It was never “alive”. It is my view that it was never taken seriously by it’s supposedly Israeli backers.
I think it was, has been, and always will be, a delaying tactic to create “facts on the ground” to preclude it’s viability.
When it comes to this issue there is really no difference between the Israeli political parties, not in reality. We know what they say, but their actions have never indicated anything different.
This is sad because in the end it will result in a one state solution which will be the end of the “Jewish” state of Israel.
Without a viable two state resolution Israel will either be forced to grant complete rights to all Palestinians it controls or end up a pariah state internationally, like South Africa, and ultimately end up going in the same direction.
Col. Lang,
This is a bit like the old Red Skelton skit which opens with the English Professor telling his student the newly rich Bum “Within the year we will be speaking exactly the same”. It finishes with the Professor speaking exactly like the Bum. The audience laughs because the Professor was right but not in the way he anticipated.Efraim Inbar says that there won’t be a lasting two state solution. He is right. There will almost certainly be a Palestinian state in the future. But it is not at all clear if, or how long,or in what form there will be a Zionist state in the future. A South African solution is probably the best outcome they can hope for i.e the Zionist settlers get absorbed more or less peacefully in a greater Palestine. The alternative is a series of wars until the Zionists lose one decisively [they only get to lose one of these type of wars]. Then the survivors are expelled from or absorbed into a greater Palestine.
Nightsticker
This is the usual backward looking trash we get from the middle east with a few vague comments on the future. Note that there are almost no references to any Palestinian scholars and publications.
The only real way forward, if we want one, is a solution imposed from the outside by the US, EU, Russia and the UN without recourse by Israel or the Palestinians.
Shallow but interesting as a propaganda piece.
Obama team readying for confrontation with Netanyahu
A very biased historical perspective….
The two state solution died when the minority Zionist/Jewish mostly refugees from Europe got 2/3 of the land and expelled most palestinians with never ending refugee status, then came west bank settlements, the extreme police action in Gaze in 2008 – then Bibi’s second incarnation with racist swing partner. Gl luck to Mr. Obama in trying to deal with this gordian knot [aside from APAC and the Fundementalist Christians.
Pure BS. The is just the recycled Elon plan. Israel gets to annex the West Bank and Jordan gets the people and headaches. The same with Egypt and Gaza. Israel doesn’t have enough money to make that deal smell sweet.
Israel may rue the day that they did not allow the Palestinians their own de-militarized state. Nuclear weapons are coming to the Mideast whether anyone likes it or not – it’s just a matter of time. Unresolved arab anger, makes Israel the number one target – G-d help us all.
that piece by a “scholar” is what in the old USSR was called an “agit-prop” operation; these scholars use the same old methods
Abu Sinan, you hit the mark! A dreary almost hopeless view, but, after my protracted engagement in that part of the world for decades, the apparent sad truth. However, this constant turbulence and unresolved conflict seemingly does serve a useful and even necessary purpose for the Israelis…namely, were peace to break out and all external perceived threats disappear, how could they rationalize their pathetic economy and all the internal shortfalls and numerous social inequities? Heavy economic and military US aid to the ‘besieged’ state now relieved would probably wither to a trickle. No, they truly need a fight over the wall from having to face living with themselves. Without the external turmoil, imperial Israel is a highly dysfunctional discriminatory- bordering on racist- theocracy propped-up only by our wrong headed support. The day is coming, the day is coming.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_passover
I will be pleased when the Obama strategy for the Middle East is finally displayed as fact.
It was interesting reading and intended to be viewed as a rational and objective analysis of the “two state solution”. It was nothing of the sort and viewed the problem through the prism of Israeli national objectives and the mass of myths and skewed facts that have been accumulated to support those objectives.
Roger Cohen, in today’s NYT, has written another thoughtful and incisive column on our possible relations with Iran and the continuing obstacle them to posed by Israel. I give it four stars.
WPFIII
Inbar is a neo-con who just wants to hand Gaza to Egypt and some bits of West Bank to Jordan… What’s new?
Efraim Inbar: The Rise and Demise of the Two-State Paradigm:
Nationalism inspires people to endure pain and hardship in the course of national wars. p. 10
After the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the political order collapsed, transforming the PA into a ‘‘failed state.’’ This category of states is characterized by absence of monopoly over the use of force; delivery of only partial justice; inability to sustain a legal and regulatory climate conducive to private enterprise, open trade and foreign investment; and difficulty inmeeting the basic needs of the population in terms of health, education and other social services. p. 11
Washington’s priorities prior to dealing with Palestinian terror apparently require focusing attention on Iran, a state with nuclear potential and far-reaching consequences for international security. The United States does not share the prominent assumption that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of the utmost urgency for reducing tensions in the Middle East. p.13
Avigor Lieberman: ‘Stay out of our politics’
Lieberman told the meeting that the focus should be moved from the Palestinians to Iran, which he said is a much graver threat.
Brilliant: Israel Cries Wolf, Roger Cohen.
What’s critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu’s fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran, as he did Wednesday by saying America would join nuclear talks for the first time. The president should read Trita Parsi’s excellent “Treacherous Alliance” as preparation.
After a while one understands the perfect “prism” Abba Eban’s Statement, “Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”, provides. From the lowest to the most emblazoned academic layers it always hovers over the statements like a cloud.
Efraim Inbar: The Rise and Demise of the Two-State Paradigm:
Nationalism inspires people to endure pain and hardship in the course of national wars. p. 10
After the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the political order collapsed, transforming the PA into a ‘‘failed state.’’ This category of states is characterized by absence of monopoly over the use of force; delivery of only partial justice; inability to sustain a legal and regulatory climate conducive to private enterprise, open trade and foreign investment; and difficulty inmeeting the basic needs of the population in terms of health, education and other social services. p. 11
Washington’s priorities prior to dealing with Palestinian terror apparently require focusing attention on Iran, a state with nuclear potential and far-reaching consequences for international security. The United States does not share the prominent assumption that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of the utmost urgency for reducing tensions in the Middle East. p.13
Avigor Lieberman: ‘Stay out of our politics’
Lieberman told the meeting that the focus should be moved from the Palestinians to Iran, which he said is a much graver threat.
Brilliant: Israel Cries Wolf, Roger Cohen.
What’s critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu’s fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran, as he did Wednesday by saying America would join nuclear talks for the first time. The president should read Trita Parsi’s excellent “Treacherous Alliance” as preparation.
A rare sane voice …
everybody hold on to your pant. This is going to get bumpy.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1077222.html
Obama team readying for confrontation with Netanyahu
In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration is readying for a possible confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by briefing Democratic congressmen on the peace process and the positions of the new government in Israel regarding a two-state solution.
The Obama administration is expecting a clash with Netanyahu over his refusal to support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
In recent weeks, American officials have briefed senior Democratic congressmen and prepared the ground for the possibility of disagreements with Israel over the peace process, according to information recently received. The administration’s efforts are focused on President Barack Obama’s Democratic Party, which now holds a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The preemptive briefing is meant to foil the possibility that Netanyahu may try to bypass the administration by rallying support in Congress.
I am very suspicious of the current situation in Iraq. The continuing bombings which seem to be primarily Shiite focused are apparently all being blamed on Al’ Qaeda, yet the reality may be that they are being perpetrated primarily by disgruntled Sunni or Sunni with some Al’ Qaeda support. In other word, our “successful surge” may not necessarily be that successful in the long run. I think we really need to take a serious look at this. Hopefully our leaders are not trying to be evasive as to the true nature of what we are seeing. On the other hand, WE are not going to be able to provide the ultimate solution in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, and we had better start getting honest with ourselves and more realistic in our international relations in general.
stanleyhenning@mac.com:
I am suspicious of these attacks as well.
However, I am wondering if they are funded and organized in the interests of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait in order to convince US to stay in Iraq.
The article doesn’t mention Israel’s unceasing efforts to undermine a Palestinian state.
It also fails to elaborate on the future of Jerusalem and the settlers in a Jordanian West Bank, or of Palestinians in the proposed formally annexed parts. The Palestinians will not be moved out without extreme violence; will Israel simply formalise its apartheid?
“Indeed, the essence of the two-state paradigm—one state for the Jews
and one state for the Palestinians—has not been internalized by the PA
leadership. Even the ‘‘moderate’’ Mahmoud Abbas rejects the idea that Israel
should be a Jewish state.”
The Palestinians are expected to accept that their country will belong to others in perpetuity, regardless of whether they make their peace. It may no longer require ‘revisionism’ for Palestinians to demand more than the 67 borders. Rather, Arab Israelis may demand equality and an end to the notion of a state for Jews.
Tzipi Livni is right about one thing. The end of the two-state concept will mean the end of Israel as “a Jewish state” (Judenstaat). There is no possibility that the international community, least of all the US and Quartet, will sanction a one-state solution with anything approaching apartheid. In time, the Arab citizens of this proposed democratic state would be in the majority with full civil rights. It is in Israel’s – and everyone’s! – best interest that a two-state solution succeed. Israel needs to get cracking.
The two states solution never exist beyond conference circuit and few earnest diplomats. But in general, they are big charade, talk for the sake of talking. Fig leave to cover Israel expansion in fact. Reasons:
1. Israel knows they can get away with most what they do. They only need to keep the appearance of ‘peace partner’, on the ground, it’s just another day of occupation. Israel is winning and expanding their grip, why should they stop now?
2. Palestinian leadership under PLO has been demoralized and weakened. Specially after the last election. They are not in position to offer anything. Abbas is extremely weak and unpopular. Everybody knows this, including the Israelis.
3. The state department, hence the US Israel-Palestine policy is pretty much dictated by hardcore rightwing zionist.
http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2009/04/07/1004171/john-podhoretz-commentary-and-israel
The other day I stopped by the Harvard Club for a lunchtime panel discussion organized by Commentary on the future of conservative magazines. The panelists were Commentary editor John Podhortez, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and National Review Online founder Jonah Goldberg.
During his opening remarks, Podhoretz listed the defense of Israel and Zionism as one of the four pillars of Commentary’s mission, so when it came to the Q & A, I asked him to elaborate on how the magazine planned to treat Israel-related issues. What exactly are the parameters of debate in a conservative magazine after Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush have endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, with the former moving to dismantle Jewish settlements?
————–
Basically, nothing really changes when it comes to Israel-Palestine, until key players changes. list of game changers:
1. Palestinian leadership change. Abbas die, PLO scattered to pieces. Hamas finally control west bank. Then true Palestinian war of independence start.
2. Something happens during transition in Egypt. (botched transition, major policy change, geopolitical re-alignment, etc)
3. US-Israel relationship. Major scandal or realignment in big global power (Russia, China, Asia energy need, big war somewhere in Asia)
4. Iran. (By extension all its major allies. Syria, Hezbollah, Iraqis Shia) Therefore Hamas’s overall strength and capability. Of course Iran’s negotiation with US and related nuke, Iraq, afghanistan are going to change Israel relationship.
5. lastly, various global power with close interest. (Russia-Syria/Iran/central asia. China-oil/Iran/the gulf)
6. Israel moves itself. (Is it going to attack Iran? Will it negotiate, etc)
so far Israel is being very belligerent. (planting story on China hacking grid, selling India weapons that freaks pakistan, selling Russia drones that pentagon has said no) Basic “enemy of my enemy is my friend”/”keep em busy”, neocon move.
Obama better keeps tracks of all Israel major intelligence operation in the US, because it’s going to be major with Bibi in charge. We are talking about scandal, major media move, international tension, high politics game.
FBI and DOJ better be functioning and not penetrated. cause counter intelligence operation has the last say in major US-Israel brawl. Pentagon-states-dhs are pretty much leaky buckets to the israelis.
but overall, I simply can’t see any major change in the next 4-5 years.
Although interesting, I found this article to be so completely one-sided as to make it functionally useless in developing an actionable sense of what is to be done. Now, the author somewhat elliptically hinted at the futility of the war over “facts”, and admittedly that is a snare for the feet of students of this conflict. But dismissing the case of the Palestinians because they have not been able to loft a traditionally recognizable state entity seems pretty weak to me. For centuries, these people lived under the hegemony of larger powers such as the Turks, who were probably not very nurturing towards proto-national movements, any more than the Austro-Hungarian empire looked fondly upon the national aspirations of various Slavic peoples under its control. And immediately after the Great War, the Middle East fell under the control of the French and the British, further retarding the possible growth of any sovereign Arab nation states. This is particularly ironic in that T.E.Lawrence to a large extent enlisted Arab military help against the Turks with the implied promise of freedom from foreign domination. So then the European powers squatted down as the new hegemons. When were the Arabs to agglomerate themselves into functioning nation states under these conditions? And then, the Zionist project gathered even more steam as time passed, further complicating matters in Palestine. The British were very conflicted in the signs that they sent off; they actively supported the Zionists in some ways, but were not fully committed to the formal institution of a Jewish state. And as the weight of de-colonization bore down on them after the Second World War, and the logic of Palestine as a necessary bastion in defense of the Suez Canal, the vital waterway leading to their soon-to-be former colony of India unraveled, things got ever more dodgy. Highly motivated and well funded Western colonizers in the persons of the Zionists possessed great advantages in these circumstances, regardless of the growing antipathy of the Arab Palestinians towards their influx. Who would you EXPECT to win the race towards statehood under these conditions? And once the Arab Palestinians were dislodged from their land and commerce, the bases of their claims to a potential for a national legitimacy, would it really be such a trick to keep them off balance enough to keep them from achieving a critical mass? Disinformation, bribery, assassinations were probably effectively deployed against the Palestinians by the Israeli state. Why don’t those bumbling Palestinians just get their act together? Well?
Apologies for the long post, but this got my goat. Here’s another take on the Two State issue from Bernard Chazelle, posting over at tinyrevolution.com.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002923.html
Here’s Chazelle’s homepage at Princeton, where he is a professor. You may view his CV there should you wish.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/
Thanks, good people.
Shukran, ya sheikh al hikma.
Washington sources added that the Obama Administration would not be continuing the tradition that had developed during the Bush years of hosting Israeli prime ministers whenever they showed up in town, sometimes with just a phone call’s notice.
The first meeting with Obama was called off,and Netanyahu hoping to meet Obama during his visit to DC was told the president would not be in town.
Rahm lays down the law to netanyahu,shockingly
No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel — whose father fought with the militant Zionist group the Irgun, and whose appointment had provided such reassurance to Israeli officials — was quoted this week laying down the law to Israel.
If Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, Mr Emanuel was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/17/721484/-Barack-and-Rahm-not-playing-ball-with-Netanyahu
It may be worth having a look at Debatepedia’s pro/con article on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Two-state_solution_to_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Pro