Stephen Walt: What do we do if the "two-state" solution collapses?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Tue, 02/10/2009 - 4:50pm


(snip)

Interestingly, this moderate consensus in favor of two states is itself a fairly new development. The 1993 Oslo Accords do not talk explicitly about a Palestinian state, and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the agreement, never endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state in public. And when First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke about the need for a Palestinian state back in 1998, she was roundly criticized, and the White House promptly distanced itself from her remarks. In fact, Bill Clinton didn't endorse the idea of a Palestinian state until his last month in office. The mainstream "consensus" behind this solution is in fact a relatively recent creation.

Today, invoking the "two-state" mantra allows moderates to sound reasonable and true to the ideals of democracy and self-determination; but it doesn't force them to actually do anything to bring that goal about. Indeed, defending the two-state solution has become a recipe for inaction, a fig leaf that leaders can utter at press conferences while ignoring the expanding settlements and road networks on the West Bank that are rendering it impossible. Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is a perfect illustration: He has lately become an eloquent voice in favor of two states, warning of the perils that Israel will face if the two-state option is not adopted. Yet his own government continued to expand the settlements and undermine Palestinian moderates, thereby putting the solution Olmert supposedly favors further away than ever, and maybe even making it unworkable.

There are two trends at play that threaten to undermine the two-state option. The first is the continued expansion of Israel settlements in the land that is supposed to be reserved for the Palestinians. There are now about 290,000 settlers living in the West Bank. There are another 185,000 settlers in East Jerusalem. Most of the settlers are subsidized directly or indirectly by the Israeli government. It is increasingly hard to imagine Israel evicting nearly half a million people (about 7 percent of its population) from their homes. Although in theory one can imagine a peace deal that keeps most of the settlers within Israel's final borders (with the new Palestinian state receiving land of equal value as compensation), at some point the settlers' efforts to "create facts" will make it practically impossible to establish a viable Palestinian state.

The second trend is the growing extremism on both sides. Time is running out on a two-state solution, and its main opponents -- the Likud Party and its allies in Israel, and Hamas among the Palestinians -- are becoming more popular. The rising popularity of Avigdor Lieberman's overtly racist Yisrael Beiteinu party is ample evidence of this trend. And it's not as though Kadima or Labor have been pushing hard to bring it about. According to Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times:

The result is that the next Israeli government, left to its own devices, is likely to opt for the status quo with the Palestinians - continued occupation of the West Bank, desultory peace talks, steadily expanding settlements and military force in response to Palestinian rockets or bombs. The long-term pursuit of a two-state solution will be brushed aside, with the argument that the Palestinians are too divided and dangerous to be negotiating partners."


One does not need to look far down the road to see the point where a two-state solution will no longer be a practical possibility. What will the United States do then? What will American policy be when it makes no sense to talk about a two-state solution, because Israel effectively controls all of what we used to call Mandate Palestine? What vision will President Obama and Secretary Clinton have for the Palestinians and for Israel when they can no longer invoke the two-state mantra?

read on... very interesting!
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/10/what_do_we_do_if_the_two_state_solution_collapses

[elleng]

1. Jimmy Carter

advising Obama administration on the issue.

[EFerrari]

25. Amy ran a segment with him today on her show.

:hi:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/11/former_us_president_jimmy_carter_we

[shira]

2. more shlock

If Palestinian leadership wanted a peaceful 2-state solution, they wouldn't have chosen war in response to Camp David/Taba 2000 and the Gaza pullout of 2005. Neither situation was perfect for Palestinians, but they were BIG, HUGE, GI-NORMOUS starts. If PA leadership really wanted peace, they certainly would not have responded by declaring more war in response to CD/Taba and Gaza 2005. That's not how a leadership, so "desperate" for peace and a national home for Palestinians, reacts.

Amazingly enough, some "progressives" congratulate PA leadership for choosing war over those 2 peaceful initiatives.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. It must pain you greatly that this POV is becoming increasing more prevalent.

Even Simon Peres had to address calls for one-state in his WaPo op-ed yesterday.

The clock is ticking dear Shira. Tickety Tock! Tockety Tock!

[oberliner]

4. Odd that it doesn't pain you

I do not see how anyone could view the end of the two-state solution as a realistic possibility as something that will be good for the Palestinian people.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Oberliner, it is ABSURD to even PRETEND there is such a possibility.

A new settlement was announced last week.

I'm not against 2 states. I'm against PRETENDING the gov't of Israel actually pursuing it. Israel talks 2-states and acts to create one bit apartheid state.

My goal for palestine isn't a Muslim gov't. It's a secular gov't that provides human rights to all who reside therein. A democratic state in the whole of historical Palestine/Israel could provide those political and human rights.

It is only those who wish a religious nation that would see a single democratic state as a "loss."

[oberliner]

6. New settlements do not mean that Israel is not pursuing the two-state solution

It means they are pursuing a two-state solution where some of the settlements in the WB become incorporated into Israel in exchange for land within Israel being ceded to the new Palestinian state.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. What a crock of crap.

Continued settlement expansion, along with the Jews-only roads and infrastructure that accompany them are EXACTLY what it means.

I can't believe you actually pretend that exponential settlement expansion is meaningless. That's just nuts.

My goal for Palestine isn't a Muslim gov't. It's a secular gov't that provides human rights to all who reside therein. A democratic state in the whole of historical Palestine/Israel could provide those political and human rights.


Only those who support a religious-based gov't would decry a single democratic state for all as "loss."

[oberliner]

9. There are no Jews-only roads

Please stop repeating that false statement.

What guarantee would there be that a single-state that is democratic would end up being secular?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. It's certainly not secular now, is it?

Do you suggest that no guarantees could be put in place?

Today there aren't even guarantees that Arab Israelis will retain their citizenship... hasn't Lieberman begun a "Loyalty" PR campaign?

As for the apartheid constructs, are you suggesting that there are Arab settlers?

[oberliner]

11. It is definitely secular now

Israel is currently a secular state.

The Lieberman thing will never happen, thankfully.

Pretty sure there are no Arab settlers, but Arab Israelis can use any of the roads in the West Bank to go to the settlements, and many do work there.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. A thin, thin veil, the "yellow license plate."

Can you explain to me how Israel is both "secular" and "Jewish?"

[oberliner]

13. Can you explain to me how France is both secular and French?

Israel is as secular as the US or any country in Europe.

Israel has no state religion and everyone is free to worship as they please.

Granted, some in Israel would have it not be so - but I'd argue the same is true in the US.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. So, what does somebody have to do to become "French"

and to be elibible for French citizenship? Is it comparable to what one has to do to be eligible for Israeli citizenship?

[LeftishBrit]

28. The procedure for people to apply for and be eligible for French citizenship...

is fairly similar to the procedure for non-Jews to be eligible for Israeli citizenship.

Jews have a 'fast track asylum seeker status' for Israel citizenship, but still have to go through immigration procedures and normally to renounce other citizenship.

In practice, EU citizens are likely to have an easier time emigrating to France than non-EU citizens; and are officially entitled to visit and work in France to a greater degree than non-EU citizens.

[shaayecanaan]

35. Israeli law does not require renunciation of prior citizenship...

most European Jews that migrate to Israel retain their old passports, AFAIK.

Jews have a 'fast track asylum seeker status' for Israel citizenship

The only requirement for a Jew is that they hold an aliyah certificate (which is normally granted as-of-right) - the only requirement usually is that the applicant hold an unremarkable police record.

Once the person arrives in Israel the oleh certificate automatically entitles the person to residency in Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Most people whom I've known who had immigrated to Israel did not keep prior citizenship...

it may be that it was their country of origin, rather than Israel, that didn't permit it. At any rate, it still meant they had to give it up.

My reference to 'fast track asylum' is to the main reason for the 'law of return': that Jews from anywhere should be able to automatically claim safe haven if they need to, and therefore all Jews should be allowed to immigrate without a long-drawn process. There are other reasons why Israel encourages Jewish immigration, but this is the primary reason, as shown by the fact that it gives access under the Law of Return, to some people who are neither religious Jews, nor ethnic Jews by ordinary Jewish law (mother isn't Jewish), but who have sufficient Jewish ancestry to come under threat under conditions of antisemitism.

[shaayecanaan]

67. People I know that are French

kept their passports. They may well have elected not to tell France.

[Captain Needa]

63. After Schengen treaty

EU citizens are entitled to travel, reside and work in every state of the European Union with the same rights their nationals have. That means no border searching/filtering, no Visa needed, no need to justify enough wealth for living in the desired state and equal access to public healthcare and employement options. It's like someone would move from New York to Los Angeles.

[Shaktimaan]

29. Do you mean French in terms of cultural nationality,

or in terms of political nationality? I'm not certain that one can just "become" French in the cultural sense. But that kind of question is ultimately philosophical anyway.

In terms of gaining citizenship to France, yes, the process is very similar to how one would apply for citizenship to Israel. As far as I know, eligibility in either nation is not restricted, not beyond the standard logistical considerations which are common in all states, anyway.

[shaayecanaan]

33. "I'm not certain that one can just "become" French in the cultural sense"

For the most part, being French or German is largely a matter of which language you speak, rather than whether you are Gallic or Teutonic in origin.

[Shaktimaan]

42. Oh, I disagree...

Being French is about much more than just what language you speak. French culture is complex, varied and deeply held amongst people who identify themselves as members of their tribe. I don't think it is primarily about sharing a specific ethnic heritage either, (though that surely has played some role in its historical development.) French culture/identity/etc. transcends that in exactly the same way that Jewish identity transcends the Jewish religion.

The Arab identity doesn't fit into any neat categories either. You could say that the Arabic language acts as one of the most important touchstones within an identity that unites a pretty disparate group of people under a single tent. But it isn't a litmus test. If an Arab person grows up in London and never learns Arabic does he cease to be Arab? Of course not, just as a secular Jew retains every bit of his Judaism despite not practicing the religion.

There are different key unifying aspects within different cultures, but that doesn't mean they have to be absolute. A French person who rejects escargot remains French nonetheless.

[shaayecanaan]

68. No...

ethnically, there is nothing that separates the French or German areas of Switzerland. Religiously, not much separates them either. It really is pretty much a matter of which language you speak, which is why French identity puts such a premium on the French language.

[Shaktimaan]

71. Well, I disagree...

I think that there are significant differences between the two identities beyond merely speaking different languages. But whatever, it isn't important. The point is that Judaism extends beyond just a shared religion.

Jewish people comprise a nation in a similar way to the French, the Kurds, the Parees and even the Arabs. There are differences in how each of these groups relates to their specific tribe. The Parsees, like the Jews, have a shared religion in addition to cultural/historic commonalities, while Arabs form a much larger group that encompasses many smaller, more specifically defined nations of people. Despite this there have been movements in the past to unite all Arabs under the banner of a single nation. While this never came to pass, Arab states recognize a shared identity between their different nationalities as evidenced by organizations like the Arab League.

So there is no constant set of rules that dictates how all groups must relate to their individual tribes. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that Jews comprise a distinct nation of people which is no less valid than every other nationality on the planet?

[shaayecanaan]

72. Disagree all you like...

It doesnt make it any less so.

Jewish people comprise a nation in a similar way to the French, the Kurds, the Parees and even the Arabs.

No. You do not speak the same language as an Ethiopian Jew, you have no particular genetic, ethnic, familial, linguistic, historical or cultural affinity with him other than a nominal faith-based association. This is in complete contradistinction to the Kurds, "parees" (Parsees?) and Arabs, who have all of those things.

The only difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Judaism has less practitioners which helps foster a feeling of solidarity. Because of that, there is more cohesion amongst Jews of different national origin, particularly when they are a small minority. Again, nothing profound about that. In the same vein, Muslims in Western countries tend to put aside their national differences and worship in the same mosques precisely because there are so few of them, and they collectively feel under the hammer from the white majority.

There is no difference between a secular Jew and a lapsed Catholic. Both of them are likely to maintain cultural or familial associations with their faith whilst not subscribing to its religious beliefs. When a (protestant) Christian becomes an atheist he does not call himself a "secular Christian" simply because in most Western countries the "christian" part is presumed.

[Shaktimaan]

73. Everything you wrote here is wrong.

Frankly, I'm a little astounded as to how misinformed you are about not just Jewish identity, but both Christian and Arab identity as well. I'm tempted to correct your myriad falsehoods, but as I realize that you are relying on them to bolster a particular political view that you are quite fond of, I would probably be wasting my time. I would like to point out the absurdity of someone who has never bothered to learn much about Judaism attempting to dictate its defining characteristics to someone who actually is Jewish, though. This absurdity is only increased when we consider that you have chosen to try and decree absolutes on a topic as amorphous and individual as identity politics.

That said, your understanding of the key components of Jewish identity are deeply flawed. Judaism is an ethnoreligious identity. It's defined by religious, ethnic and cultural influences, not just the religion. Unlike Christianity, there IS an ethnic aspect to Judaism. Most Jews in the world have a shared history and common ancestors, despite the ethnic diversity that's apparent within the community. Genetic tests have borne this out to be true, most Jews have genetic markers indicating a shared homeland. (Guess where it is!)

Your comment that an Ethiopian Jew and myself have little in common is really just an underhanded attempt at exploiting the tragedy of the Jewish diaspora to de-legitimize Jewish nationalism, for political reasons. The fact that an Ethiopian Jew and myself have anything in common at all is actually a testament to the strengths inherent in Judaism. Not many other groups have weathered a thousands year old diaspora and retained much of anything in common.

Your comment about lapsed Catholics is the funniest though. People never refer to themselves as "secular Christians" because the term is a total contradiction... not because people just assume that everyone is "culturally Christian." I challenge you to try and convince any religious Christian that it's possible to be a Christian while not believing in Jesus.

Here's the important thing though... none of this actually affects the issue at hand anyway. The reasons of how and why don't matter at all in regards to a national identity. The only important thing is that a shared national identity somehow exists. The idea that anyone has the right to determine whether a group of people qualifies as a "nation" or not is both elitist and retarded. Most national identities did not grow independently of each other anyway. They were shaped and hardened as much by what they WERE NOT as by what they WERE. For example, where would Palestinian nationalism be now if not for Zionism? Similarly, Judaism was shaped and even kept intact within the diaspora by the threat of anti-semitism. Persecution played a large role in Jewish history, and it consequently altered the culture that grew out of that history.

Most Jews share a unique religion, language, history, ethnic traits, and even some cultural touchstones the entire world over. All kept intact over the diaspora out of a sense of tradition, often held on to even at great cost. The religion may have always played a key role in sustaining Judaism. But it has never exclusively defined it.

[shaayecanaan]

74. Re: Judaism is an ethnoreligious identity.

Most religions usually combine some element of ethno-nationalism. Hinduism is conflated with Indian nationalism, Islam with Arab, Shinto with Japanese, etc. Ashkenazi Jews once spoke Yiddish, went to the Yiddish theatre, ate gefilte fish, etc. But American Jews of course do not speak any additional languages, do not dress differently, eat differently or have any profound connection with Jews of any other nationality.

Judaism is not exceptional in conflating religion with ethnicity. Indeed, if anything, (western) Christianity is unique in transcending it. In the near East, Christianity is a much more ethnic affair. The Armenian orthodox church for example does not accept non-Armenians, the Maronite Church, Coptic church, Assyrian church etc are all closely identified with various ethnicities and in all such instances children are taken to have inherited their religion from their parents.

Of course, truly "secular" Judaism is as much a nonsense as secular anything. Most secular Jews some kind of lip service, maybe go along on high holidays, not eat or at least feel guilty when eating pork. In that regard they are no different than the majority lukewarm Christians who have the same level of observance.

And in the same way that Christianity has had to abandon ethnic protectionism in order to survive in the acid bath of liberalism, so too has Judaism. That means outreach programs to non-Jewish spouses, relaxing the traditional matrilineal succession rules, even officiating at interfaith marriages if thats what it takes.

[Shaktimaan]

76. Can you clarify?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. It seems like you're making contradictory statements and I'm not sure what kind of point you're ultimately trying to make. You begin by saying that American Jews don't speak additional languages, that they don't eat or dress any differently than other Americans. Then you argue that even secular Jews pay the religion some kind of lip service by going to shul occasionally and not eating pork and so on.

Aside from the fact that you aren't being very cogent here, the things you are saying are still not even particularly true. Most American Jews still enjoy eating gefilte fish or other Ashkenazi food, speak at least some Hebrew, are interested in the lives of other Jews from around the world, (often advocating for them), and are ardent supporters of Zionism. Conversely, relatively few secular Jews follow any of the dietary laws... for example, kibbutzes in Israel used to raise pork themselves and I know of at least one that has an annual tradition of throwing a big BBQ on Yom Kippur.

While you often miss the mark on these details, you seem to be trying to demonstrate that there is a lot of overlap between the cultural, ethnic and religious aspects of Judaism, which I would tend to agree with. In fact, it is exactly the point that I was making to you before. That Judaism isn't defined by any single facet but is influenced, along with forces from the greater, non-Jewish world, by all of them is what I've been saying all along.

The fact that Christianity has molded itself in distinct ways to better fit different societies is not really the same thing at all. You just can't draw a parallel between evangelical and non-evangelical religions regarding their relationships to ethnicity. There may have some similarities here or there, but I don't think that either Christianity or Islam are similar to Judaism in this way whatsoever. Though there are certainly many more similarities with religions like Hinduism. Regardless, I never suggested that Judaism was exceptional for conflating religion and ethnicity anyway. Among other things, I think that Judaism is exceptional for retaining a distinct national identity despite a 2,500+ years long diaspora.

So, do you have a specific point that you're trying to make with all of this, or are we merely having an academic discussion?

[shaayecanaan]

80. I rather thought I had...

To use your example - you compare the Jews to the Parsees, and you say that the Jews are similar to the Parsees as an example of a group that constitutes a religion as well as an ethnicity.

The comparison is nonsense, of course. Unlike Jews, the Parsees are ethnically homogenous, are strictly endogomous and do not accept converts. They are a tiny community of 100 000, yet they span the globe from Australia to Zanzibar. The Parsees have a far better claim to being an ethnicity than Jews.

However, the word "Parsee" simply means "Persian" and even the Zend language of the Avestas is simply a medieval form of Persian. The Parsees are quite simply those remaining Persians that refused to convert to Islam from Zoroastrianism. In that sense, the distinction between between mainstream Iranians and Parsees is purely religious. There are those Iranians which have converted to Islam and a small remainder which remain Zoroastrian.

There are of course secular Parsees - Freddy Mercury comes to mind. However, the fact is that being a secular Parsee, like being a secular Jew, is simply a lukewarm version of an otherwise completely religious identity. In a sense those secular people are simply "freeloading" off an identity that is maintained by the religiously devout. The vast majority of the 52% of Jews that intermarry each generation in the US are secular Jews, those who do not are predominantly religious. Were Jews to abandon their religion in a wholesale fashion, they would be absorbed into the protestant majority very quickly.

The point which I am making is that Judaism is a religion, and to maintain otherwise is nonsense.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. I didn't know "French" was a religion.

Last I checked "Judaism" was still a religion.

[oberliner]

39. Judaism may be a religion, but being Jewish is not

There are large numbers of secular Jews, in Israel and around the world.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. So Israel's Jewish holidays are secular holidays? The fact that one can't be married by a judge

but only a religious figure is "secular?"

I am NOT claiming Israel is a theocracy. That's absurd. But there are clearly rights and benefits for those who are Jewish.

I guess it gets to the basic question: Who is a Jew?

[oberliner]

47. There are no holidays that are "Israel's Jewish holidays"

Jewish holidays are Jewish holidays. They are the same holidays in whatever country they are observed by Jewish people who observe them.

Much of Israel shuts down on the major Jewish holidays since many Israelis observe them, just as much of the United States shuts down during Christmas since many Americans observe that holiday.

A bill allowing for civil marriage will hopefully soon be introduced, and is supported by a wide range of the political spectrum from Meretz to Beiteinu, and including Kadima.

The current system, though religious in nature, does not give preference to any one religion over any other. Marriages can be performed by any religious figure - be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Druze.

[Vegasaurus]

49. There is freedom of religion in Israel

Contrary to any other Arab country.

Amazing that the theocracies all across the middle east don't bother anyone but the Israel haters.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

50. Is land purchase equally available for all religions?

[oberliner]

51. Have we established yet that Israel is a secular country? nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

52. Israel is a country with special privileges for Jews only.

Whether you definte that as a religion or ethnic group, it discriminates just the same.

And the question remains: Who is a Jew? What does it mean to be Jewish? Is it religious? Genetic? Those who have the holocaust as the organizing principle or touchstone? When I lived in Ramallah 10 years ago, that was the debate of the day. Has it been solved yet?

If my husband converted to Judaism, would he be allowed to go see his family? Would he be allowed to live in his own country then?

I've already said, I was never trying to portray Israel as a theocracy. Unlike many who post on the DU, I have nothing against religion per se. Hell, I attended theological seminary for 3 years!

[oberliner]

54. Is America a country with special privileges for Christians only? nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

56. Not legally. Anyone can buy the house that is for sale on my street.

Anyone can apply to any college.

Anyone can ride drive on any road.

Anyone has freedom of movement to move about.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

58. Do you believe that in American there are certain privileges for Christians only?

I am trying hard to think about that, as the mom of a Muslim family.

No school on religious holidays would be the only one-- but most districts have off for Jewish holidays around here. And that scheduling is a matter of logistics rather than anything else...

[oberliner]

60. Government buildings closed on Sunday

Open on Saturday - closed on Sunday.

For schools, there will never be a game scheduled on Easter Sunday.

Not the same for Simchat Torah or Shavout, for example.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

64. Each school district creates its own calendar. As a Muslim I am not offended that kids have

off for Roshashanna and Yom Kippur but not the 2 Eids.

It's a matter of demographics.

My kid plays soccer exclusively on Sundays.

Do you interpret that scheduling to mean Christians have special privileges?

[oberliner]

78. Of course Christians have special privileges

Christmas and Easter are integral to the calendars of every public school in the United States in a way that Jewish and Muslim holy days are not.

[oberliner]

61. None of those things are true

There are many colleges that not everyone can apply to.

There are many roads that not everyone can drive on.

There are many places where people are not free to move to.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

65. Really? Give one example of a public road that you must have a particular identity card to drive on

C'mon Oberliner. You lose this one.

[Dick Dastardly]

75. There are many gated communities where not everyone can enter or drive on its roads n/t

[oberliner]

77. Have you ever been to Bel Air?

California, not Maryland.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

53. Is land purchase available equally to all religions and ethnic groups? nt

[oberliner]

55. Try Google or Wikipedia nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. I'll take that as a firm "NO."

[oberliner]

59. Just encouraging you to do your own research if interested in learning more

I am sure there are sources online that have a lot more info than I do.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. I already know the answer and so do you. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

70. If you think the answer is a firm "no", then no, you don't know the answer.

[cali]

82. Former SC Chief Justice Rehnquist owned a house

a few miles down the road from me with a deed restriction banning sale or lease to Jews. This wasn't in some distant past, but only a few short years ago. And it may be illegal, but exclusive communities do still keep out people they find undesirable.

[Shaktimaan]

84. The whole "Arabs aren't allowed to buuy houses in Israel" thing is usually...

presented in a pretty dishonest way, from what I've seen. The statement made is usually something along the lines of, "Arabs are forbidden from purchasing property in Israel" which is technically true, even though it implies something other than the reality of the situation. It's true because NO ONE, Arab or Jew, is allowed to purchase property in Israel, technically everything is leased from the government which retains ultimate ownership.

If we were going to have an honest discussion about housing discrimination in Israel though, I'd say that it pretty closely resembles the situation in America. You have plenty of examples of the kind of thing you're describing here occurring over there. But the Israeli Supreme Court has consistently ruled on the illegality of such practices, not that anything keeps it from happening to those who lack the money or drive to sue over it.

But no one is arguing that discriminatory practices are nonexistent in Israel. Just that such discrimination is not official policy or even legal, which is the implication of course, whenever people bring up the subject as means of criticism against Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. Yes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. Another half truth...

To get married in Israel requires a religious marriage, but not only by a rabbi. Christian, Muslim, etc are all good. IIRC Israel also recognizes ANY marriage done elsewhere, including gay ones.

Estimates are that 80-90% of Israelis are secular, the ratio inversely proportional to age. Passover there is like Christmas in the US, as much tradition as religion. It also tolerates other religions, which can not be said of any of the muslim or arab nations.

[Shaktimaan]

43. So the French have a common language...

and the Jews have both a common language and religion. None of them exclusively defines the identity of someone who belongs to either group.

Look at the Parsees, for another example. They've got an ethnic identity that includes both a cultural/historical aspect as well as a religion that's exclusive to the community.

[Shaktimaan]

27. certainly.

In exactly the same way that I am both Jewish and secular. And how most Israelis are also both Jewish and secular.

You are trying to narrowly define Judaism as a religion so you can criticize Israel for being theocratic. But any such critique relies on fostering both a dishonest description of how modern Jews define Judaism and also how the state of Israel reconciles this larger Jewish identity with its accompanying religion.

Are you just playing semantic games here or were you truly unaware that Israel sees no conflict in defining itself as both secular and Jewish?

[azurnoir]

14. Oh no we know that there are" Israeli only "roads

though are there not? The ones we have been assured are lined end to end with Israeli Arabs and really not there for settler convenience

[oberliner]

16. Attempting to blur the line between Israelis and Jews is not helpful

Israeli-only roads are not Jew-only roads.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. How many Israeli Arabs live in the settlements and travel on the roads?

Realistically, as opposed to hypothetically.

[oberliner]

18. I know one Israel Arab was killed traveling on one of those roads

Not sure how many travel on them per day, but I can promise you that it's a lot more than zero.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. Thanks for the info. Any Arabs live in the settlements?

Any Israeli Arabs making their own settlements or setting up outposts? Just curious.

[oberliner]

31. There are no Arab Israelis living in the settlements that I am aware of

I would be very surprised if there were.

[Shaktimaan]

44. Israeli Arab settlements... no, of course not.

I would imagine that there isn't much of a need felt among Israeli Arabs to try and "reclaim" areas that are already populated primarily by Arabs.

But if you wanted to be technical about it, one could argue that there WERE Arab settlements created in East Jerusalem and the West Bank a few decades ago. Take the Jewish Quarter in EJ for instance. Obviously it was almost 100% Jewish until Jordan overtook it and expelled all of the Jews in 1949. The Palestinian Arabs who then moved in and began living there were essentially doing the same thing then as Israeli settlers are doing now. The only real difference is that the Arabs were Jordanian citizens while the Jews are Israeli. Their actions were/are identical.

[azurnoir]

30. Playing semantics is not helping either

and that is exactly what has been going with the two state solution too.

[Vegasaurus]

21. Jews aren't giving up their state

to be overrun by Hamasniks and IJ types and Sharia law and lack of human rights or civil rights.

That is what a Muslim majority looks like (in most of their other 22 countries, none of which really allow Jewish citizenship).

Jews have a country for their own self determination.

They are not giving it up to, because it won't be a "democratic state".

It will be another Muslim theocracy with all the in-fighting among factions currently going on in the other Muslim countries.

Thanks but no thanks.

[EFerrari]

26. You can't really call those "human" rights or "civil" rights

if they aren't extended to everyone, can you? And a Muslim majority is pretty much a matter of time, no matter how many people are killed in the Gaza Strip.

[Vegasaurus]

32. All citizens of Israel, regardless of religion or ethnicity, have human and civil rights

Israel is not responsible for providing the rights of citizenship to the Palestinians in the territories.

[EFerrari]

34. Bullshit. Israel cannot deny human rights to anyone, citizens or not.

[IndianaGreen]

40. They can, they have, and they will.

It's down the toilet from now on!

[Ken Burch]

22. Oh puhleeze. Like those settlements will EVER be removed

The Israeli political-military establishment doesn't want peace. They just want "victory". As if anything positive comes of "victory" in this dispute, or if it's even possible.

[Ken Burch]

87. You can't say they're pursuing when they're still trying to game the process

so that as much of the West Bank as possible ends up in Israel. A country can't be for peace and STILL be insisting on trying to "win".

[shira]

45. your post is absurd

1. The 2-state solution was a reality in 2000. Arafat didn't consider it, he declared war instead, and was applauded for it. It could still happen today but PA leadership simply does not want the conflict to end. Ending the conflict ends them and it's as simple as that.

2. You think a 1-state "secular" model like in Lebanon will work for I/P? PA leadership has proven that if ever in charge of such a situation in the future, they will resort to ELIMINATING freedom and human rights, just as Hamas and Fatah have done for the last 15 years. The only hope you could possibly have for freedom and human rights is for extremist PA leadership to FOREVER stay out of the politics of that 1-state solution you're calling for. That's no guarantee. It's also a pipedream, as Israelis would never go for it, become an instant minority, and have its economy destroyed by doubling its population (nevermind the national security implications).

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. you KNOW perfectly well that is NOT true

Arafat did NOT walk out of Taba..The Israeli negotiating team under instruction from the Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally ended the talks in January 2001 because of the election which Ariel Sharon was predicted to win by a landslide with an absolute promise to reject any agreement with the Palestinians reached at Taba. These facts are not in dispute among sane and rational people.

Here is the link to the European Union notes - known as the Morantinos documents which all sides have confirmed to be a reliable record of what occurred at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip: "Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

snip:"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

--

Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT) - link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."

--------------

_________________

Here is a neutral and dispassionate examination of what led to the break down at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in January 2001:

sion of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/visions_in_collision.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F355%2Fjeremy_pressman

-------------------

IDF Commander: Israel Provoked Second Intifada:

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=936744

Collision course
By Yotam Feldman

From his home on the Upper Galilee road between Safed and Rosh Pina, as Brigadier General (res.) Zvika Fogel looks out over Lake Kinneret, the Gaza Strip seems a distant memory. But four years after Fogel retired from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Gaza continues to preoccupy him. He became chief of staff of Southern Command headquarters in February 2000, and in the past few years he has reflected a great deal on the actions he and his fellow officers carried out in the months that preceded the eruption of the second intifada, at the end of September 2000. His conclusion: the IDF created an irreversible situation that led to a confrontation with the Palestinians.

Fogel analyzes - in military present tense - the developments in the months that preceded the eruption of the second intifada. "The conceptual sequence is that we are creating the conditions for a confrontation by the very fact of our preparations," Fogel says. "It is clear to everyone that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We want to decide which event would foment the explosion. All we have to do is say what will launch it and then behave as we have planned."

Even if that was not the Palestinians' intention?

"Exactly."

Was the course the IDF embarked on a one-way street?

"I am afraid that I have to say yes. I don't see a situation in which, in July-August, someone says, 'Dismantle the forward posts, we are going back to joint patrols.' People would have looked at you like you were tipsy."


link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=936744

[shira]

69. sorry, what you're peddling is not true according to 1st hand accounts

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

That article puts to rest that had Arafat more time, a deal could have been made. At the end of both Camp David and Taba, it wasn't that Arafat wasn't close in agreement - it's that he made NO proposals and acted as though he was either there to get everything he wanted (including humiliating and embarassing Israel), or that nothing at all would happen.

Ben-Ami and Ross make it clear it was due to Clinton's term ending that time ran out. Barak didn't even want to go to Taba, knowing it would be a waste of time - but also realizing that if he didn't, that would be used against him in the election.

[Ken Burch]

81. What did Arafat ever ask for that would have been HUMILIATING to Israel?

There was stuff the Israeli government didn't like, but there wasn't anything that would have shamed them.

[Shaktimaan]

83. The problem wasn't what Arafat asked for.

At Camp David he didn't ask for anything. Literally. After rejecting the Israeli's proposal he refused to make any kind of counter-offer.

Arafat then delayed their second meeting, at Taba, for as long as possible because he believed that Bush would be much more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than Clinton had been, and he wanted to wait until Clinton was leaving office before meeting again. Looking back on it, of course, Arafat could hardly have been more wrong about Bush. But it's easy to see how he could have made this mistake and thought that his administration would end up being more beneficial for the Palestinians than the preceding one had been.

[Ken Burch]

86. He may have assumed that Bush the Second's administration would be like Bush the First's

on I/P issues. As you'll recall, James Baker was as close as we've come to having an Arabist as Secretary of State.

I'm not uncritical of Arafat, I wish he'd come back with a different offer, still, the U.S. and Israel then proceeded to make things a lot worse(and paved the way for Hamas' accession to power)by taking the incredibly stupid decision to isolate Arafat in Ramallah and withdraw from him the respect he was entitled to as president of the PA.

Continued settlement building was badly hurtful to the cause of peace in this period, as was Sharon's bloody-minded insistence on visiting the Temple Mount, a visit he KNEW would spark a violent response.

It's hard to see Israeli and U.S. policy since 2000 as being about anything but deliberately trying to provoke Palestinian violence as a way of buying time to build enough settlements to make the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza impossible.

One side in a dispute can't rub it in to the other side that it has all the power, and then still retain the right to condemn the more powerless side when they respond in the way that anyone would to such a rubbing in.

The Israeli people were ready to accept a Palestinian state, but I am convinced that the post-2000 policies of the Israeli political class were still driven by a desire to make sure such a state couldn't be created, a futile, arrogant insistence on "victory", even though such a victory would only be the midwife of war after war in the future.

Your country deserved better and saner leaders, as well as do the Palestinians. It's really hard for me to see much moral difference between people like Haniyeh and people like Livni and Netanyahu. In both cases, you've got leaders who've drunk way too many gallons of the nationalist Kool-aid.

But it's the Israeli political and military elite that are the ones, from what I see, that have held all the real power. And it's THEM that have to stop trying to prevent the Palestinians from getting a real state. Winning, as people like Livni and Netanyahu see it, really isn't worth anything, especially if it means guaranteeing that your children will be soldiers unto their tenth generation.

[laststeamtrain]

8. Thanks for posting.

From the article:

<snip>

There are only three alternative options at that point. First, Israel could drive most or all of the 2.5 million Palestinians out of the West Bank by force, thereby preserving "greater Israel" as a Jewish state through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. The Palestinians would surely resist, and it would be a crime against humanity, conducted in full view of a horrified world. No American government could support such a step, and no true friend of Israel could endorse that solution.

Second, Israel could retain control of the West Bank but allow the Palestinians limited autonomy in a set of disconnected enclaves, while it controlled access in and out, their water supplies, and the airspace above them. This appears to have been Ariel Sharon's strategy before he was incapacitated, and Bibi Netanyahu's proposal for "economic peace" without a Palestinian state seems to envision a similar outcome. In short, the Palestinians would not get a viable state of their own and would not enjoy full political rights. This is the solution that many people -- including Prime Minister Olmert -- compare to the apartheid regime in South Africa. It is hard to imagine the United States supporting this outcome over the long term, and Olmert has said as much. Denying the Palestinians' their own national aspirations is also not going to end the conflict.

Which brings me to the third option. The Israeli government could maintain its physical control over "greater Israel" and grant the Palestinians full democratic rights within this territory. This option has been proposed by a handful of Israeli Jews and a growing number of Palestinians. But there are formidable objections to this outcome: It would mean abandoning the Zionist dream of an independent Jewish state, and binational states of this sort do not have an encouraging track record, especially when the two parties have waged a bitter conflict across several generations. This is why I prefer the two-state alternative.

<more>

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/10/what_do_we_do_if_the_two_state_solution_collapses

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. The two-state solution collapsed in 2000, and the one-state solution collapsed in 1948.

All that's left is the one-state-and-a-mess non-solution we have at present.

[oberliner]

19. What was the one-state solution that was proposed prior to 1948?

I don't recall such a solution being on the table.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. As in "that was the last point it was viable at".

Come to that, a "two viable states" proposal wasn't on the table in 2000.

But before 1948 (well, briefly...), a one-state solution was an option, and before 2000 a two-state solution was.

[IndianaGreen]

38. The 2-state solution is Santa Claus

Just as Santa Claus is a myth used to push people into buying things they can't afford, the 2-state solution is a myth that makes Westerners feel good about themselves while Israel continues to build and expand settlements on Occupied Palestine.

[excess_3]

41. what's wrong with a 4 state solution?

Israel, Gaza, Nothwest Bank, Southwest Bank.

the non-Israel entities could organize themselves
any way they feel like it

[SeattleLeft]

85. What do we do if the "two-state" solution collapses?

In my opinion there will be nothing to stop Israel from continuing on a legitimatized ethnic cleansing. Remember they feel that God gave them that land I apologize if I seem distressing

[Shaktimaan]

88. Not distressing so much as ignorant. np

[Recursion]

89. 9/11 brought the consensus to 2-states

People who say "terrorism never achieves anything" need to reflect on that: the first unequivocal statement of US support for a Palestinian state was in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks.