Olmert and Polling on One-State/Two-State
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is quoted in Haaretz again on the Israeli-Palestinian future:
“The choice, both 60 years ago and today, is between a Jewish state on part of the Land of Israel and a binational state on all of the Land of Israel,” the prime minister continued. “That is the choice we are faced with today — the existence of two nation-states, Israel and Palestine, in the Land of Israel.”
It looks like the momentum toward a quicker pace of negotiations will continue as Israel looks to celebrate its 60th anniversary this spring. Olmert refers to the one-state/two-state issue as a “choice,” but I doubt he really intends it that way. Combined with his comment last week about the risk of Israel becoming an apartheid state, however, the real question is whether or not Israel effectively killed the two-state option by its decades-long creation of all those facts on the ground.
At a talk last week by Boston-area Workmen’s Circle members who had toured Israel and the West Bank, one participant noted that although activists they met with insisted Palestinian opinion had shifted away from the two-state option, polls showed continued support for it. He took this as a sign of hope for a workable two states. I wonder, though, just what the polls mean.
My suspicion is that most Palestinians, especially older ones, would accept a two-state solution if the Palestinian state was viable and if it met the clear bottom-line Palestinian concerns: Israel’s return to the pre-1967 border (including in Jerusalem), the removal of Jewish settlements, East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and recognition of the Palestinian right of return even if not that many acted on the right. If negotiations lead to this outcome, I suspect most Palestinians will accept it. Thus the polls.
On the other hand, if negotiations leave intact the settlement blocs, the separation wall and bypass roads, and all the rest of those on-the-ground facts, if East Jerusalem is sealed off from the West Bank, if Israel continues to reject responsibility for the Nakba, then my guess is Palestinian support plummets and the two-state solution becomes merely a temporary stop-gap rather than a sustainable peace.
I’d like to see polling tease apart these different scenarios.
Technorati Tags: Israel, Olmert, Palestine, Nakba, one-state solution, two-state solution, Workmen’s Circle
January 7th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Professor,
You write: “On the other hand, if negotiations leave intact the settlement blocs, the separation wall and bypass roads, and all the rest of those on-the-ground facts, if East Jerusalem is sealed off from the West Bank, if Israel continues to reject responsibility for the Nakba, then my guess is Palestinian support plummets and the two-state solution becomes merely a temporary stop-gap rather than a sustainable peace.”
What a selective list of problems. Why ought Israel to take responsibility for defending themselves back in 1948? The Palestinian Arab side, wherever it could, drove out the Jewish population. Hence, all of the land that was conquered by Jordan was ethnically cleansed. On top of that, the Arab side turned on the Jewish population in the entire region so that, in the end, nearly all Arab countries were cleansed of their Jewish population. In fact, a far larger number of Jews were displaced.
No one forced the Arab side they needed to start a war to prevent the formation of a state recommended by the UN. No one forced them to displace the Jewish population of East Jerusalem.
Further, in current times, had Arafat said, in late December of 2000, that a deal was near - and not rejected President Clinton’s ideas for settling the dispute (and lying about it to boot, as Prince Bandar stated) -, the dispute would have been ended. Instead, he instigated a war and, in response to that war, the Israelis built a barrier, just as the US built a barrier to prevent fighting in the Balkans - a barrier that snakes through people’s farms, fields, etc., etc. and makes life more difficult.
Frankly, countries doing what is necessary to protect their soldiers is moral. The Israelis have nothing to answer for on this. They did the moral thing. Fewer people are dying. Maybe, just maybe, the lull in fighting will leave room for people to talk and settle the dispute.
As for Israelis settling on land, if the land is land Israel would cede in a settlement, then settling the land is foolish. If, however, it is on land that Israel will keep in the end, then I see no reason why the Israelis should not settle on it.
Consider: The Arab side ought to bear moral responsibility for its failures over the years. Rather than reach a compromise with the Jewish population - as was clearly offered from the 1920’s on -, the Arab side attacked the Jewish population. In the 1930’s the Arab side rejected a two state solution. The same in 1948. The same in 1967. The same in 1979. The same in 2000. They have quite a bit to answer for.
As for East Jerusalem, until it was ethnically cleansed by Arabs in 1948, the population was substantially Jewish. Why should Jews give it to Palestinian Arabs? I could understand Internationalizing the city. But, to give it to Arabs where their claim is based wholly on religion is, to me, to cease thinking.
Given that negotiations are, thus far, going nowhere, I think the Israelis should keep the amount of land thought necessary to defend the country and cede the rest. They should do their best to convince the world’s nations that such should become Israel’s boundaries, recognized by the world. And, the Arab side ought be treated as a foreign nation from day one. If they shoot into Israel, the Israelis should do what the Russians would do.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Correction:
Delete the sentence that reads: “Frankly, countries doing what is necessary to protect their soldiers is moral. ”
Substitute the following:
Frankly, countries doing what is necessary to protect their civilians is moral.