I have suggested in my various comments on these pages the idea of a plan for Israeli Jews and Israeli/Palestinian Arabs to develop an autonomous Palestinian entity under Israeli sovereignty on the analogy of the French-Canadian Province of Quebec in the Dominion of Canada. I don't think I am being naive in believing that there is a critical mass of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs who would be as happy to be represented in such an entity as they would be in being citizens in neighboring Arab countries. A matter for the serious consideration of readers who, I humbly submit, might strive to become better informed is that Hebraic/Judaistic and Arab/Muslim cultures are very much interrelated. I greeted an Arab student one morning in my high school class in the School District of Philadelphia with an enthusiatic " Salaam! Nahnu ihwan!" (we are brothers) in Arabic. After he reacted with gratitude, I added, "We really are! The greeting is fully cognate in Hebrew, 'Shalom! Anahnu ahim!'"
I hardly think a spider web of connecting roads of areas Palestinians are allowed to travel through in their own occupied territory is a fix.
3
This is certainly a well thought-out piece.
But as someone with immediate family in Israel, I’m surprised that many Americans and Europeans see this vote as a referendum on the Palestinian issue.
The secular Israelis that I know are much more interested in taxes, squeezing of the middle class, high cost of living, limited housing, and especially the insane takeover by the ultra-religious right-wing.
The Palestinian issue, for better or worse, doesn’t even make the top-ten list.
29
@David G. Deck chairs on the Titanic.
'Most Israelis are acutely aware of the trap they are in: Withdrawing from the territories would jeopardize their national security, but annexing the territories would jeopardize their national majority.'
What about if the majority of Israeli forces agreed to withdraw from the West Bank (leaving a nominal force in place, of course), and in return, Palestinians would have to accept a standing UN force, or mission, in the West Bank to ensure Israel's security?
The force could be phased out over time in accordance with the Palestinians' ability to meet pre-agreed upon security requirements between the two parties, as part of a peace plan.
Though I can understand that the Palestinians would probably prefer no external forces at all on their lands, if that was the price for their own state, they might just be inclined to take it. And a large UN force of blue helmets patrolling the West Bank would likely be much more palatable to them than IDF forces.
The thing is, Israel has to choose: two states or a binational state. And they need to do it soon, while they still CAN choose. For if they do nothing, Israel will soon turn into South Africa, and then there will be no going back.
I hear over and over again that Israel has always been ready for peace, but has lacked Palestinian partners. That may be true. But it doesn't matter anymore. Israel is the stronger party - always have been. They can choose their path. The Palestinians can't. What Israel can't choose is more time.
28
@Josa
I support this concept, though it actually does matter if Israel has no Palestinian partners to negotiate with. Also, what would happen with Gaza? If a walled tunnel, highway, or other sealed “land bridge” from Gaza to the West Bank was created, would this result in Hamas and Hezbollah fighters ending up shooting rockets at Israel from the West Bank? Even UN Peace Keepers can’t really keep scattered rocket fire, or even occasional snipers and suicide bombers from slipping thru the border. I have personal experience with how quickly a Palestinian from Hebron was able to murder even though his passage through an electronically surveiled border was immediately detected.
7
Simple. Neither the UN or any of its agencies can be trusted.
18
@Sydney KayeTotally agree. Think 1967, when UN peacekeeping force was assigned to separate Israeli and Egyptian forces. Nasser simply ordered them out of the Sanai prior to massing forces for an attack on Israel, which was preempted by the IDF and the six day war.
17
A fourth option exists, but I know will never happen without immense pressure from outside parties like the U.S., this would be a four state solution. The West Bank goes back to Jordan and Gaza once again becomes part of Egypt. Both Gaza and the West Bank are to small to really exist and prosper as independent nations nor would Israel trust them to exist in a peaceful way. Jordon and Egypt are strong enough, organized enough to and smart enough to integrate these two areas into a thriving nation. But why should they? It would be a expensive and enormous task hence the need for outside support.
30
@Zave Smith
Neither Jordan nor Egypt want their previous territories back. It would be to troublesome.
Another solution, only with US and Arab pressure and money, would be the joint Israeli Jordanian control of the West Bank and the creation of a new resort city on the Jordanian Saudi border on the Red Sea for the Gaza population.
3
Maybe Jordan and Egypt need to annex these respective areas and then after a year or two of infrastructure investment let the residents vote on the annexations thumbs up or down?
I suspect the martyrs would vote no as their family income would take a big hit from these governments.
4
@Zave Smith And what would happen if Jordan and/or Egypt are taken over by radical Islamic groups?
2
This piece confuses the issue by effectively conflating the occupation with the settlement enterprise. At Oslo, the negotiators on both sides agreed that there should be a two-state solution with borders approximately equal to pre-1967 borders. But since then, Rabin was murdered and Arafat failed his people at Camp David by disengaging from negotiations and not controlling terror, and meanwhile, Israel continues to build more and more settlements, making the Oslo two-state solution harder to achieve. In principle, with better leadership and strengthened democratic civil society, and without the Sheldon Adelson free media support of Netanyahu, what Israel could do now is to freeze settlement building and begin to dismantle settlements -- starting with the ones that were established or expanded in violation of Israeli law -- and reaffirm that when the Palestinians are ready to live side-by-side in peace, they can have their state. In other words, the onus on Israel is not to end the occupation today, it is to end begin to unwind the settlement operation, to begin to change the Palestinian narrative, "We don't have an Israeli partner for peace." The onus on the Palestinians is to control and end terror, to change the Israeli narrative, "We don't have a Palestinian partner for peace." Peace is still possible.
26
This theory of how to fix the problem ignores how and why it came to pass. The conflict existed well before 1967 and before any settlements were built. The root cause of the dispute is the Palestinians’ refusal to accept the existence of Israel. That won’t change even if every last settler was removed from the West Bank and the Palestinians had their state. The Israelis accepted the UN decree of a Jewish state and a Palestinian state co-existing side by side. The Palestinians and their Arab brethren declared war. Stop blaming Israel. The Palestinians deserve the blame for their situation. Only they can fix it by eschewing violence and accepting that Israel is here to stay.
41
The root of the problem is that the UN created Israel without securing agreement from the countries where Israel was created. The root of the problem was to create the nationalist state where to the people of other ethnicity were assigned the role of the second-rate citizens.
5
@Joel Rubinstein
Israel should not make any unilateral concessions because the Palestinians see them as signs of weakness & are encouraged to be even more violent. Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was rewarded with thousands of unguided rockets fired at Israeli population centers - a crime against humanity & Israeli crops set on fire - a war crime.
Because most settlers are wealthier than most Palestinians, their presence in the West Bank will make a Palestinian state economically viable. Settlements will become part of Palestine & settlers will become Palestinian citizens.
2
Nice to read a proposal that actually presents some positive moves Israel could make to achieve Palestinian cooperation. There was no mention of how to deal with the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, though, nor of how to compensate for the land stolen from Palestinians when they were forcibly expelled in the first place. Considering the passion and commitment that nationalities have to remember and resist injustices (consider the 800 year history of the Irish fight against British exploitation), I doubt that lasting peace in the region will arrive until Israel acknowledges and addresses those issues.
66
@Pen
What about the illegal and immoral terrorism? What about some commitment to accepting that Israel is there to stay, and a Palestine will thus have limited borders, and possibly limited autonomy until, truthfully, they grow up and behave as responsible adults.
As to Palestinians all being forced to leave, that is not true. But, repeating the same lies to a gullible audience can work magic, doesn't it.
20
@Pen
The Palestinians were forcibly expelled in 1948 during a war that they started. They should be compensated for their loss of property, but calling it "stolen" is a serious distortion of history. The Palestinians and their supporters need to acknowledge and address this issue honestly.
15
@Pen
"Considering the passion and commitment that nationalities have to remember and resist injustices [...]
"I doubt that lasting peace in the region will arrive until Israel acknowledges and addresses those issues."
I doubt that lasting peace in the middle-east will arrive until Hamas, Hezbollah, their nation-state patrons, the Arab League, and indeed the entire world loudly and unambiguously declare that the Jewish People have sovereign rights to live _as Jews_ in their ancestral homeland.
The Modern State of Israel represents the correction of a historical wrong that began with the Roman conquest and its erasure of the idea of Jewish nationhood (e.g., "Palestine" as a Romanized version of "Philistine"). This was followed by centuries of Roman & Byzantine imperial control; the Crusades; the Ottoman Empire; and French-British colonialism and geopolitical great-gamesmanship.
Yes, there is a long memory — two millennia in duration — of Jews being oppressed, expelled, and denied their identity and, at times, their very lives. The rise of nationalism in 19th Century Europe and the atrocities of the 20th Century were the tipping points for renascent Jewish nationhood.
Recognize the State of Israel; stop the political and economic ostracism; cease the incitement and conduct of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bigotry, hatred and violence. These are the minimal requirements for "cooperation" before anything else.
18
A thoughtful an interesting proposal. Thank you.
Also a sobering reminder that solutions to this conflict likely require less linear thinking, and more creative thinking about a seemingly intractable problem. In such situations, history can offer insight. The partition of the British Mandate into a Palestinian State and the Jewish Homeland seems to have confined Palestinians to a rather narrow claim. In fact, what was Trans Jordan, now the Hashemite Kingdom, is today a majority Palestinian state. By some estimates over 70% of Jordanians are in fact of Palestinian origin (this majority holds even if Palestinian refugees are excluded). It's also historical fact that the delay in admission of Jordan to the United Nations until 1955 was in part due to issues of how the British separated their original Palestinian Mandate by bifurcating this into two pieces - Palestine and Trans Jordan. Palestinians already have a homeland - it's Jordan. Curious that this historical fact never enters into the modern discussion of the conflict?
78
@Anonymous thank you for citing this important fact. I agree that it is very curious that no one discusses the Palestinian homeland that already exists. The Hashemite kingdom that rules Jordan has only been in power for less than 100 years. The Hashemites have zero historical claim to Jordan/Palestine - they descend from a ruling family of Saudi Arabia.
54
@Anonymous
You make an important point.
I think the argument that "Palestinians already have a homeland - it's Jordan" is rarely made for one very simple reason.
Acknowledging this element of the British Mandate and the subsequent UN Partition Plan of 1947 imply accepting the legal basis of the Modern State of Israel. There are strong forces that fiercely reject Jewish sovereignty in any part of the middle east, denying the Jewish claim to their ancestral homeland: Hamas, Hezbollah, their nation-state patrons, and much of the rest of the world.
It is also true to history to state that Arab/Muslim rejection of Jewish sovereignty _precedes_ the Six-Day War. If Israel were to withdraw unilaterally from the "occupied territories" as it had done from Gaza, anti-Israel hostility from Hamas and Hezbollah would only be emboldened, not abated, in my opinion. Their goal continues to be a Jew-free land "from river to sea." It is this intransigence, enabled by money and arms from several nation-state patrons, more than any other factor which is prevents a just and lasting peace in the middle-east.
64
your premise is that a Palestinian homeland already exists. So when Israel was created the land was empty? I think not.
When Israel was created the native inhabitants were forcibly removed. Stating that they can go to Jordan is akin to saying that the indigenous people of the US should go to Canada.
37
The author talks as if the West Bank Arab residents is a priority issue that matters. It doesn't. It just isn't a top priority. The major issue is a secular vs religious ideological conflict. Lieberman won't sit with the Ultra- Orthodox. Therefore no coalition can form. That is all that has changed. And it is an important change. Secular voters, the largest Jewish voting group, are largely opposed to the continued outsized priviledging of the ultra-orthodox as far as funds, lack of societal productivity, determinations regarding days that are acceptable for business, religious judgements over who and who is not a rabbi, and therefore a Jew, and lastly, not serving in the military.
Whether we look at Kashmir, Tibet, or any number of world situations, there may be no solution vis a vis West Bank Arabs for now. The PA certainly cannot govern their own state, and refuses to let their own constituency even vote. The solution is truly the " New State" solution, which does create a new Palestinian state without uprooting anyone.
3
There can't be a question between a one-state and two-state solution since Israel is set up to be a Jewish state and Palestinians would eventually outnumber them.
When you cross that off the list there is only one option and it is not to keep settling civilians in occupied territory and then claiming it is dangerous.
Get out of the occupied territory, create a buffer zone around Tel aviv and stop the madness.
4
Many 'lessons of the past' since 1967 ought not to be forgotten. This article proposition brings to mind a crucial one: Moshe Dayan's decision of complete withdrawal from most of the W. Bank following the 1967 war and despite no chance for peace.
Apparently, he had had same notion of 'letting the Palestinians live their own life' without Israel's interference.
Alas, what followed was a ruthless suicide bombing terror campaign. The likewise shall occur when this article's proposition is implemented.
Israel is on the cusp of a struggle between 2 cultures. We must accept the reality of 'conflict without solutions' when it is one between 2 Cultures, diametrically opposed in beliefs, as Israel's Western one vs. the Arabs' Muslim.
2
Huh? What a distortion of history. The left failed to win elections with the 2-state solution as its platform after Arafat pre-planned the 2nd Intifadah even while pretending to negotiate at Camp David 2000. Dennis Ross, the chief US negotiator at those talks has a book The Missing Peace, which pretty much obliterates this guy's premise. Of course the 2nd intifadah included mass bombings of hotels, cafes, and pizza shops.
Then you have the IDF captured documents and reports on Op. Defensive Shield.
Even before that, after an extremist Jew assassinated Rabin, Israel rallied behind Peres in the name of Peace. Fearing actual peace, Hamas set of a wave of bus bombings in 1996. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, got mass rocket fire on civilians. Pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, got mass rocket fire on civilians. Israel is far from perfect, but blanket blaming Israelis for the failure of the 2-state is pure leftist fantasy, and pushes peace further away by underpinning max demands no Israeli govt will entertain. Even Ganz has said many communities in JUDEA and Samaria are strategic and will never be given up.
3
1) So the solution to occupation of the West Bank is to let Palestinians travel freely on a spiderweb of roads that criss-cross their occupied territory?
2) If you reason the occupied territory needs to stay in control for security reasons than why would your fill it with civilian men, women, and children?
2
Israel did not withdraw from Gaza in a true way. It blockaded the strip, keeping goods from going in and restricting trade. Gazans are trapped in an outdoor prison. Remember, “we’re not starving them, we’re putting them on a diet.” Israel bombed the electric grid resulting in a shut down of sewage services. Then Israel came back to repeatedly “mow the lawn”, killing thousands of civilians. The refugees from 1948 can see their land now housing settlers.
Israel does not have democracy. Each candidate is a variation of Zionist privilege over human rights.
2
How about:
How an Israel of Jewish citizens who obey the Ten Commandments and practice the teachings of Rabbi Hillel could shrink the conflict.
3
After creating an open-air prison -- known as Gaza -- cut off from access and economic development, and subject to remorseless Israeli bombing campaigns, what did Israelis expect?
Switzerland?
3
My take on why a third election is the most likely outcome of this second & how it's way too early write Netanyahu's political obituary
https://www.albawaba.com/opinion/bibi-isn%E2%80%99t-done-yet-think-third-israeli-election-won%E2%80%99t-be-result-second-think-again-1311259
Also, my take on the meaning of Bibi acting like Trump, and how sorry a commentary that is on Israeli politics: https://realcontextnews.com/bibis-trump-show-how-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-wins-by-imitating-the-donald/
1
My take on why a third election is the most likely outcome of this second & how it's way too early write Netanyahu's political obituary
https://www.albawaba.com/opinion/bibi-isn%E2%80%99t-done-yet-think-third-israeli-election-won%E2%80%99t-be-result-second-think-again-1311259
Also, my take on the meaning of Bibi acting like Trump, and how sorry a commentary that is on Israeli politics: https://realcontextnews.com/bibis-trump-show-how-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-wins-by-imitating-the-donald/
Here is an solution for an honest and just peace:
1. Israel should return to its LEGAL 1948 borders and forbid any non-Palestinian immigration with immediate effect.
2. Pay all expenses necessary to resettle Palestinians in their historic homeland, Palestine, now occupied by Zionists and branded as Israel.
3. Use the epic fundraising apparatus which has fed the malignant growth of Judeo-fascistic Zionism to pay Palestinians compensation and punitive damages for all Zionist activity in Palestine. Existing housing and infrastructure, in as new condition, in all occupied lands and within the 1948 borders would be a partial payment.
4. Upon return of displaced Palestinians a constitutional convention must be convened to write a constitution allowing Palestinians the right of self-determination.
5. Ratify the constitution with a plebiscite where Palestinians world-wide and Israelis living within the 1948 borders will determine the future of the currently named State of Israel.
Straightforward. The United States is adept at regime change. Maybe that skill and capability could once be used for good. It has been a total failure over the past 75 years.
11
The author completely ignores the fact that Hamas runs the Palestinian 'state' in Gaza. Hamas does not believe Israel has a right to exist, along with many countries in the middle east. The conflict will not 'shrink' without a major change in ideology and tolerance.
But it does anger me when I see the negative news on Israel when over decades they worked in earnest to establish a second state AND Arabs in Israel, contrary to popular opinion, are free and not attacked or minimized as many would think.
2
My take on why a third election is the most likely outcome of this second & how it's way too early write Netanyahu's political obituary
https://www.albawaba.com/opinion/bibi-isn%E2%80%99t-done-yet-think-third-israeli-election-won%E2%80%99t-be-result-second-think-again-1311259
Also, my take on the meaning of Bibi acting like Trump, and how sorry a commentary that is on Israeli politics: https://realcontextnews.com/bibis-trump-show-how-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-wins-by-imitating-the-donald/
1
There is a third option. Carve a piece of land from Texas the size of Israel, and move all Israelis to there. Build it up to the prosperous state that "old Israel" is today. Then we will make it part of the USA as the 51st state. And we leave what's left behind for the Palestinians. No more wars; no more intifadas; no more missiles flying. Problem solved.
3
On one side the Israeli governments have had 70 years to work things out with their Palestine neighbors. And they once appeared to greatly want that. On the other side, as the world’s universal scapegoats and considering six plus million dead Jews, there is no reason for the citizens of the Israeli nation to believe anything anyone tells them. It’s a mess, but I’m backing the Israelis, but not with one American warrior!
2
Face it: Jews have many abilities in culture, finance, the arts. Political compromise and flexibility is not very Jewish. Just look at the history of Palestine before the Roman War.
2
Another NYT article with content ignoring the facts. Among them: the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was not motivated by good will or peace-considerations, and it was done without any coordination with the Palestinians; within a year afterwards Israel began the strangling siege with horrible results.
Also the talk of a "left-wing vision of peace" ignores the fact that the (so-called) left in Israel shares the same ideology of Jewish supremacy and complete Jewish ownership of Palestine. "Peace" in Israeli-Jewish terms means that the Jews in Israel are left to live as they want, without taking their Arab neighbors into consideration. This definition of peace has nothing to do with truth, justice and reconciliation, which are the necessary building blocks of any real, lasting peace.
The writer should also use the term Israeli Jews -- "Israelis" include almost 2 million citizens of the state who are Palestinian Arabs (whose families lived in the country Palestine centuries before the Zionist Jews began their take over of the land).
In line with this ignorance are the comments of the reader GerardM: the Palestinian leaders recognized Israel within the pre-1967 borders (holding 78% of the land!). And re: the UN Partition Plan of ´47: the Jews were to receive 53% of the land for their state, although they were less than half the total population of the land. Is that a fair "deal"? It is absurd -- it meant the Palestinians should pay the price for the Holocaust in Europe.
5
Why /should/ any Palestinian support the right of Israel to exist? That seems like a lot to ask of a people whose nation was cut in two (not "in half"; the portion left for the Palestinians to crowd into was more like a third) by British imperialists to serve their own interests on their way out, caring neither about Jews nor about Palestinians.
Zionists, some Zionists anyway, say they are ready to discuss practical peace proposals while not recognizing any actual /rights/ of Palestinians, especially not their right of return. So why does endorsing the result of Zionist violence (I am talking about 1947-49) have to be a precondition for Palestine to be accepted at peace talks? I should think it would be fine for a Palestinian peace delegate to say "No of course I don't recognize Israel's right to exist, but I'm not an idiot and I recognize that it /does/ exist."
This mythology about the intransigent Palestinians serves only to ensure that there will never be an honest Israeli peace effort.
4
The reality is that there is one state and only one state that has state power between the Jordan and the Mediterranean and that is the State of Israel. You already have a single, binational state. What you don't have is a democratic state. Instead you have a state that recognizes the rights of just one of the communities and suppresses the rights of the others. Call it racism, call it apartheid, call it naughty-naughty, call it "necessary", call it Zionism, call it "Jewish liberation", call it whatever. Until the discrimination ends, until democracy (where EVERY adult between the river and the sea has an equal vote), there will be no peace.
21
So Mr. Goodman's solution is a permanent apartheid state in which the stateless Palestinians are permanently warehoused in a few isolated enclaves. His solution is to build roads between the enclaves, thus perpetuating the pretense of progress toward a Palestinian state. Israel will preserve the status quo, which is an apartheid state, until eventually they are unable to. They long ago prevented the possibility of a Palestinian state.
3
This is fantasy material. The only way forward for Israel is the removal of Netanyahu from a leadership role. He is not in this for Israel anymore. His only goal is to try to prevent a trial on his fraud and corruption. He is guilty. If his party removes him from leadership considerations, they could probably combine with Blue and White tomorrow and form a strong majority government.
4
The only way to “dramatically transform the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” is to change the central feature of Islamic society, namely its control of women. It is simply not tenable to have communities living side-by-side where the women in one live according to the whims of their male relatives while the women in the other serve in the army and then marry whoever and whenever they choose. Everyone on the Islamic side understands this, from Morocco to Iran. It is why they have vehemently opposed Jewish immigration for the last hundred years and why their current fight against Israel is so bitter and unforgiving. Academics and pundits such as yourself can dream up all the clever solutions you want, and maybe the pols will even redraw some lines on the map, but as long as liberated Israeli women are seen as threats to the underpinning of Islamic society, there will be no peace.
4
Why doesn't Bibi Netanyahu just declare himself Prime Minister for life and be done with it already? Just think no more of these absurd elections to bother with because they're a total failure.
1
Israel is in an untenable position, there is no win here only loss. How can Israel survive as a Jewish homeland with a Palestinian majority? This is the result of years of racial foolishness, including flirting with Apartheid. Another example of power corrupts totally.
2
It might be true that Tel Aviv would be within the range of the West Bank but as 9/11/01 showed oceans might not protect Israel. Only a peace deal with bring peace. What the Palestininians have shown is they can get weapons.
2
On October, 11, 1995, right before Rabin was murdered, I published in my weekly column in “Yedioth Ahronoth” an article headlined “Too Small for History”. In it I stated that given the uniquely advantageous terms of both the global and regional situations for achieving a stable settlement, the presently signed and celebrated “Oslo B” agreement was actually a missed opportunity of historical proportions. I emphasized that “Rabin and Peres seem to have decided that a bold initiative requiring settlements evictions and the drawing of permanent borders” is beyond their political abilities and, in parallel, the Palestinians asininely still believe and act as if time is on their side, as if Israel's power will melt away and it's nationalistic ambitions will be thwarted by international pressure.
I forecasted that it’s a matter of “few years” before an intensive armed conflict will erupt and that Israel will crash the Palestinians and will go on to establish the occupation (including gradual transfer and annexations) as the “Permanent Solution” --the “Second Intifada” started in September 2000.
Since then, all so-called Right (which will stay in power), Left and Center propositions and “windows of opportunities” for “shrinking” the conflict have proven to be mere commentaries lacking geostrategic and political foundation and not deserving moral-historical validation. And here we are today on the road from United Jerusalem to Greater Israel.
2
"This third way could include paving a network of roads connecting all the Palestinian autonomous areas to each other, and transferring these roads to Palestinian Authority control....Such a mighty initiative would eliminate Israeli checkpoints and give Palestinians full freedom to move across the West Bank."
For the shrinking strategy to be fully effective, the entire Palestinian autonomous areas and their connecting links should also be covered at maybe a 50 foot height above the ground with a large durable and continuous protective screen constructed out of attractive stainless steel mesh, in effect creating an expansive and commodious cage. This would give Palestinians absolute security within their designated area so long as they remained at least out of gunshot range from the fence perimeter. More critically, it would put an immediate stop to further random appropriations of Palestinian land by Israeli settlers who, quite naturally, would be reluctant to take up permanent residence inside the Palestinian cage. Finally, it would provide Israelis with much-needed protection against the danger of sporadic rock-throwing Palestinians. Everyone's legitimate needs would thus be met.
3
About the smartest and best way forward I have ever read. Are you reading this Jared Kushner? Big problems are always solved one piece at a time.
Israelis need to first reject Netanyahu.
Having a corrupt PM is bad; having a corrupt leader clinging to power precariously is much worse. Netanyahu will sink Israel's future to buy a few years more as PM. His willingness to create toxic "solutions" to win extremist Jewish support is telling.
Maybe a center-left interim government can last a few months - enough to send Netanyahu to prison for corruption. Then a broad center - right coalition can be fashioned that focuses on centrist solutions.
If Israel becomes an apartheid state, then its future will be dark. I hope they can avoid that fate.
2
"Israel could also give the Palestinian Authority more land for development around the major towns and support the construction of new Palestinian towns". What land would Israel be 'giving' to the Palestinians? Their own territory that Israel is occupying and illegally filling with settlers?
1
The New York Times has a settled idea on Israel- not that I care passionately either way about such a tiny place, next to Serbia Switzerland Togo and Sierra Leone. I wish all tiny countries the best of outcomes. Anyone reading this should of course be equally informed of the prospects of Togo, right? But for me or anyone else to have an opinion at all on Israel, or any part of Israeli government or foreign policy, its nuclear weapons or its approach to its neighbors-- some kind of excluding heresy. Please inform us of the exact approach to Israel, so I can sleep in an easy conscience that I have discovered the one and only true path.
Israel's problem is that it can't bring itself to give up on terrorist acts such as grabbing Palestinian lands and periodically imposing crushing economic blockades.
2
Micha Goodman makes a good agrument for a third way in Israel. Good luck with all that. As an American we should not be party to any of this and we should not be subsidizing the continued occupation. It is affront to all human rights and contrary to American values. So. Let the Israelis figure out their own self made problems. But not further handouts that help them fiance, indirectly, an occupation that America can not support or sign off on.
2
Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan ruled the West Bank and Egypt ruled the Gaza Strip. Although the Arab world rejected Israel's existence, nobody said much about the Palestinians.
Perhaps this pre-1967 situation can be partially restored. Jordan can unite with much of the West Bank--excluding places with large Jewish populations like Ma'ale Adumim--and Egypt can unite with Gaza. Jordan could rename itself Palestine. Gaza residents should be offered both Egyptian and Palestinian citizenship. They should be free to move to Egypt or remain in Gaza which would become a part of Egypt that is nominally Palestine.
2
Heidi's husband Norm here.
Netanyahu has to go and then a coalition could happen. It is a bit like Corbyn has to go for an interim gov to be formed in the UK. Sometimes the incumbent leaders are just too toxic to be of service but new, fresh leaders can stike the right tone for success.
Ever since Biblical times, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judæa, and neighboring countries have been a cauldron of multilateral wars. Perhaps Tolstoyan point of view, translated to the Middle East, is that this state unrest and perennial wars "is predestined to be such", and it is a sad reality. Even if Christianity is no longer a warring religion, Islam is an intolerant force, bent on annihilating all other religions and cultures. I still suspect that the President of Egypt Anwar Sadat was murdered for his making peace with Israel. Quo vadis, Terra Sancta? -- Into the abyss of eternal bloodshed.
2
"But election after election, Israelis rejected the left’s generous offer and voted for right-wing governments"
This does not make any sense: it is generous to the Palestinians but not to Israelis. The left said that if Israel withdraws then peace can be achieved. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and Hezbollah filled the void and violence followed. Israel withdrew from Gaza and Hama filled the void and violence followed. Israel handed control of parts of the West Bank to the Palestinians and the 2nd Intifada followed.
The problem is that the chain of logic: hand over land and peace will come... does not hold. This is a generous offer to Islamist terrorist groups and Israelis have seen through them.
4
I don't think the Palestinian issue was the major point in this election. I believe it is Netanyahu desperate to save himself from jail and to curb the power of the extreme right religious Jews. I believe Netanyahu has used the security of Israel to scare the people into keeping him in power while using the Palestinian people as pawns to prove his point and show how strong he is. An Israel without Netanyahu will slowly heal itself.
2
Shaking the rigid ideologies that have defined Israel’s politics.
No, that is not it. What would be required is:
Shaking the racism that have defined Israel’s politics.
Ganz won with the help of the Arab parties. But the Arab parties are not acceptable partners to the parties Ganz would have to partner with.
Arab citizens in Israel are treated like blacks were treated in the US in the deep South
And thus, Ganz can not, although he won one more seat than Netanyahu, form a government
3
@John
"Arab citizens in Israel are treated like blacks were treated in the US in the deep South..."
There is discrimination, but it is nowhere near what African Americans faced in the south. That is just a fact.
1
This article presents a linear description- right, center, left- of parties, ideologies, individual and systemic influential stakeholders with agendas, for a dynamic, multidimensional, nonlinear scenario which inadequately explains whatever is known, factually, and is reasonably explainable.
Not an easy task when one considers:
Reality’s ever-present interacting uncertainties, unpredictabilities, randomness, and lack of total control notwithstanding one’s efforts; by oneself and with others.
Every issue is not a problem, and both are not always resolvable. Temporarily or more permanently.
Both entities, Israel and Palestine, are divided in measurable and unmeasurable ways. And their Peoples are diverse in ways which can and do enrich as well as conflict.
The range of norms, values, ethics, which can underpin menschlich equitable wellbeing, seeding and harvesting mutual trust, respect, caring, help- when and if needed- both within and between these diverse Peoples, and the equitable sharing of human and nonhuman resources, remains at a low level.
Religiosity has transmuted praying to...into preying on...
Selected complex foci which are raised, more often than not, are considered and viewed from a constraining binary banality of “ either/or,” and not in terms of ranges and continua of types, levels and qualities of...
Personal accountability of Israeli and Palestinian policymakers, at all levels, for their harmful words and actions, is almost nonexistent.
“center” is static!
"The left" is no longer the left. It is simply a variation on the right. They all want to be rid of the Palestinians, and in the process to keep everything.
They only disagree on how to get to a right wing dream outcome.
3
Netanyahu cannot be trusted to act with honesty. He has done things that are unconscionable. He creates wars for political purposes. How can you involve him when he betrays you so many times?
2
The right wing power structures of Israel and the US would like Netanyahu to remain in power forever. He's more than a very smart, very strong, and very popular leader. He's more than a political icon. He's the symbol of Israel's consensus, Israel's strength, and Israel's unity with the US.
With Bibi out of power, Israel will need to deal with issues like weakening democracy, how to improve conditions for Palestinians, and growing discontent among Americans about how much power Israel has over the US.
2
This article makes no mention of two very important considerations:
1/ What is possible under international law. Everyone believes in law and order, right?
2/ What will bring peace, justice and harmony to everyone.
4
Imagine if voters had the right to vote 'NO' against such extreme views.
3
This article starts with a question about an inner Israeli political stalemate and drifts toward much greater problem, far beyond the original question. The political chaos stems from the question of What is the nature, character of modern Israel. Divisions between secular and religious, rich and poor, between European and Mid Eastern origins of Jewish people, the imbalance between Jews and Arab citizens. The boundaries between Left and Right both confuse and make no sense. People are tired of the inequalities, control and benefit from the riches and achievements, of sharing the burdens to keep the state safe, advanced and in line with the ideas that created Israel as free and democratic modern state, but without a written Constitution, thus Socialists are in both "Left" and "Right" sides of the political spectrum, depends on where the GOODS come from. The Secular is tired of Religious parties that were formed both to help wicker, poorer and outcast Sephardi Jews; "Leftists", Socialist by definition, and the Ultra Orthodox who's main concern is keeping the values of Biblical, religious Greater Israel - without taking part in the keeping of the state: Serve, educate, work, pay taxes, forcing entire population to adhere to strict (Jewish) religious rules; hideous, undemocratic; disastrous. Corruption is high, the dream of PEACE is dead, racism is center. The '67 war was great victory, euphoric and disastrous in forming current situation: controlling Arab land and population.
2
I agree with the analysis of the deadlock, but the “solution” is naive in its omissions. Building an infrastructure of roads and encouraging economic initiatives for Palestinians are great, but do not take into account destructive influences from outside sources (e.g. Hamas, Hizzbulah, Iran, etc). Also, “permitting” roads and businesses is akin to throwing a bone to a dog. Would the civil rights movement in the US have been avoided by affording blacks fewer restrictions? The resolution must be comprehensive and if needed, imposed by outside bodies, if only as a face-saving strategy.
1
Hamas is not an outside force. It's a Palestinian faction with more support in Gaza than in the West Bank.
8
This article ignores two very basic issues. Firstly, that Israel is illegally in the West Bank. Secondly, there is another "Party" who are more than just relevant to a solution: The Palestinans.
How on earth have we reached a stage where ongoing violations of international law are ignored as though Israel does not have to abide by anything other than what suits Israel? And how can we have reached a stage where the opinion of the people MOST affected is simply not considered?
Anyone wondering why there is continuous injustice, conflict and minimal chance for that changing will find at least some of their answers in this report.
16
First, Israel is not illegally in the West Bank. The area was acquired from Jordan when they attacked Israel. Israel is legally entitled to occupy the land until the people there agree to live in peace. This is what happened with Israel and Egypt.
The Palestinians’ opinion is always taken into consideration. Unfortunately that opinion typically involves killing Jews and eliminating any Jewish state.
4
@Don F
What have the Palestinians given the US, or Europe, to work with in terms of resuming talks?
5
@Don F
"Firstly, that Israel is illegally in the West Bank."
No, it is not!
Israel is legally occupying the West bank!
The ignorance projected by your claim, as the 14 other who seconded it, is a clear demonstartion of ignorance on the basics involving the conflict.
4
The US/UK establishment accept the illegal settlements on the West Bank - the "liberal" media offer token criticism but rarely question the motives of the Israeli settlement movement. They preach about human rights in other contexts - and used it as a propaganda weapon to justify the invasions of Iraq, Libya and other Arab states. Is there an element of hypocrisy in the US/UK approach?
10
Would forming a national unity government between the Likud and Blue and White help liberate Israelis and Palestinians from “rigid ideologies,” that have contributed to an “unsustainable” status quo?
Israelis are divided over rejecting right-wing call for annexation of the West Bank, and the “left-wing vision” of peace.
A “new” political centre would embrace a “centrist vision of shrinking the conflict” But for how long?
There are plans that could improve Palestinians livelihoods, like “achieving autonomous transportational contiguity” for the Palestinians – removing Israeli checkpoints and giving them “full freedom” to move across the West Bank.
“Israel could also give the Palestinian Authority more land for development around the major towns and support the construction of new Palestinian towns” etc.
This sounds like the economic incentives mentioned in Jared Kushner’s peace initiative.
The problem is that land is scarce and “sacred” – giving land to the Palestinians is unpopular. Palestinians themselves still dream of having a state of their own. As long as there are no concessions, the conflict will drag on for another century.
2
The idea that a just peace would bring rockets lobbed into Tel Aviv (a la Gaza) is silly.
There would be no rockets, indeed no conflict, if the simple aspirations of the Palestinians were honored and respected.
These aspirations get in the way of a greater --and greater--Israel. But, Israel exists in world steadily integrated and multicultural. No way to stop it. Delay it, sure, but stop it, no.
Really that simple.
The march of time is the march of progress.
8
@Marty O'Toole
"if the simple aspirations of the Palestinians were honored and respected."
What is your understanding of what those simple aspirations are?
3
Whatever the merits of these proposals are what is missing is the views of the Palestinians. As Sun Tzu pointed out thousands of years ago, "The enemy also gets a vote on the outcome". And up to now the Palestinians have shown no interest in anything that perpetuates the original UN mandate of Israel as a Jewish state next to a Palestinian state.
Nevertheless, proposals for ending this conflict must be continually proposed because as Sun Tzu also said "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" That applies the Palestinians as it does to the Israelis.
6
The realistic way to end the deadlock is for a strong man, perhaps from army, to take over the government and govern by decree.
Uh--it's not a binary choice. Here's what's really on the table: What about the Israelis annexing the settlements and the Jordan Valley and leaving Area A to fend for itself? That way Israel can wash its hands of its Palestine problem, save for the occasional punitive raid.
That's what Netanyahu wants to do--to create a "veiled protectorate" on the West Bank, just like Israel created in Gaza. The Palestinians can do what they want in the non-annexed territory, but Israel will control airspace, sea ports, borders, etc.
Ugly and brutal. Pure Netanyahu (and before him Sharon).
3
The Israeli left has wanted a peace accord in which a Palestinian State would be established in most of the West Bank and Gaza. The author notes Israeli voters have put center-right coalitions in power because such a Palestinian State would leave an Israel with insecure borders. Also after Israel left Gaza, forcing Jewish settlers to evacuate, nearby Israel has been under the threat of rocket attacks. Giving up security control of the West Bank would be risky. Both Jews and Palestinians know that historically, their people have lived everywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Coast. The Jews lived there in Biblical times; Palestinian Muslims and Christians were living in the entire area when the Zionist movement inspired many Jews to return. I am an American secular Christian. I would suggest that when a Palestinian State is established, the existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank be allowed to remain. The settlers would agree that they are guests of the Palestinians, but would retain Israeli citizenship and voting rights. Over a ten year period settlements would be established for an equal number of Palestinian refugees, to live as guests within Israel. Israel would be allowed to screen out security risks. These refugees, although living in Israel would have Palestinian citizenship and voting rights. Israel and Palestine would each appoint delegates to a Commission to monitor the security and well being of guest residents in each country.
2
This is not much in the way of a solution. The proposed containment path is akin to putting a band-aid on a deep bullet wound. It does not address the core issues of the conflict and just buys time for Israel.
6
Yes, keeping Netanyahu in could shrink many things: Justice, the public vote, democracy, and for Netanyahu personally, jail.
There is neither reason nor explanation that justifies continuing the dictator and his allies in power.
Corruption is what Mr. Goodman is proposing.
Micah Goodman is a brilliant scholar who has turned his wonderful mind toward contemporary geopolitical conundrums. This is something for which we can all be grateful. May this New Year bring hope to all people; I think Mr. Goodman is helping us to see how that can happen.
7
@Steve Kowarsky Dream on, but realize dreams only truly occur when one is sleeping. A two state solution has been offered a number of times since UN partition in 1947. The bottom line is that the Palestinians have rejected it every time, with the one exception when Egypt's leader was Anwar Sadat. And, you know what happened to him. Until a true Palestinian leader who wants a compromise and peace, little to nothing will change. And, by the way, Hezbollah in Lebanon which is controlled by Iran, is looking to create as much trouble as it can, possibly short of war, but it may precipitate one.
2
Israel's withdrawl from Gaza was the unilateral initiative of a center-right wing government set in part on showing the Israeli public the pathos of the uprooted settlers, and to obliterate the notion of carrying out a similar "exit" from the West Bank. When Hamas came to power in a brutal coup, it formed a bloody synergy with Israel's governing Likud party, each sustained by the others' violence. A two state solution along the Green Line with mutually agreed land compensation, remains the only hope for peace.
7
Mr. Goodman's argument why neither the two-state nor the bi-national one-state solution are realistic is coherent. His 'third solution', however, is a veritable pipe-dream with no real constituency on either side. Alas, the status quo is here to stay, with enough misery for all to share. TG
4
It's interesting to read these comments. Also sad. Everyone quibbles with the article and offers their understanding of why the underlying problem(s) are intractable. Oy vey.
5
This is all very interesting but I know of no Israelis who know of let alone support this solution. Aside from the committed left and the committed right, the majority of Israelis are centrists whose views about the Palestinian problem are far less clear. This centrist view is represented by the Blue and White party whose position on the Palestine issue is also far less clear.
The issue that dominated this election was opposition to the demands of the religious and ultra-religious parties that influence the lives of all citizens of Israel.
Another major issue is the participation of the Palestinian Israeli citizens - 20% of the population - in politics and public life,
7
The Palestinians are in a catch-22 situation. Either they attack Israelis, and then Israelis feel threatened and disinclined to make any concessions, or they don't attack Israelis, and Israelis feel the current situation is just fine and there is no need to make concessions.
There simply is no prospect for peace in the short term. In the medium-term, peace would require:
1) A permanent secular/religious split in Israeli politics, such that it became possible and usual to form governments without the support of the religious parties and WITH the support of the Arab (Joint List) party. We have just seen the first hints of this.
2) Israeli secular Zionist parties wanting a bigger Arab party to enable them to cement control of government against the religious parties.
3) Gaza remaining under Hamas control, the West Bank not.
At this point one could imagine a different kind of two-state solution. Gaza remains effectively an independent, Islamist state, thus removing its Palestinian population from the Israeli political equation. Israel annexing the West Bank, WITH FULL RIGHTS FOR ITS PALESTINIANS, WHO BECOME ISRAELI CITIZENS. Abandonment of the right to return AS CITIZENS for refugee Palestinians, some kind of right to return as aliens.
3
@Pundit
The Palestinians had a better opportunity with the Clinton Parameters. Why did Arafat scuttle them?
2
The author would have us believe that the sole reason for an Israeli presence in the West Bank is to protect Israel. If that were the case, Israel could have maintained a minimal presence sufficient to provide security, and let the indigenous population continue to use the bulk of their homeland free of Israeli restrictions. Israel would not have introduced some 400,000 of its own citizens to the West Bank where they exist as a privileged class using three to four times the amount of water as Palestinians. Providing "transportation contiguity" to the scattered Palestinian population centers may remove one of the most humiiiating and aggravting aspects of Israeli control of the West Bank. However it would not alter the fact that Israel continues to use over 60% of the West Bank for the use and enjoyment of its own 400,000 settler-citizens at the expense of the 2.5 to 3 million Palestinians.
19
It's been mentioned elsewhere, so I will not belabor the point.
The Kingdom of Jordan was assigned to a family from Saudi Arabia in the 1920s and 1930s. The people who lived in Trans Jordan - now Kingdom of Jordan - are of the same ethnicity, religion, and language as those who live in the West Bank.
By all rights Jordan should be the homeland of the people who only recently began to call themselves "Palestinian."
That still leaves the problem of how to divide the West Bank between Israel and the (hopefully) new Republic of Jordan.
12
A good proposal that requires more than a little understanding , flexibility and common sense among many different groups, interests and parties.
Is there enough of it (these) to go around to make this happen (let alone work)?
I hope so.
3
The wonderful thing about this conflict is that it never ends. Neither side will ever admit to having made a mistake in the past 70 years. The dream of peace becomes a reality when that happens. And since that is never going to happen, rockets will be shot off and barriers will go up. And both sides believe God is on their side.
Thirty years from now this same column can be reprinted and only the names will have changed.
5
@Tom Q: It would be interesting to discuss in some forum what was the precise wrong the Palestinian Arabs are not admitting. It interesting proposal to equate the occupier (and a brutal one at that) with the occupied!!
@Tom Q
The reality of peace will happen when both sides put their dreams aside and focus on an agreement which neither side will like much--that will look a lot like the Clinton Parameters. Both would sign the agreement through clenched teeth, but it offers the chance for two states and a better future.
are their no honest brokers to be had in this conflict? the u n in its wisdom set up the state of israel and it did so on land that was occupied by mostly palestinian people. that is a given and is not disputable. after the give over the international body pretty well washed its hands of what was to follow - mayhem. there is no doubt that the structure of the u n with its "security council" with its rights to veto is about the utmost in undemocratic modelling that one could imagine. my idea would be to put together a group of u n countries who have no axe to grind in the region e.g., uk and the u s on the grounds that these societies have large jewish voter groups that have to be appeased. neither of these countries have a large voting group of palestinians so guess the outcome. what has happened in palestine highlights the main problem of democracy - the best solution can not be sought after because somebody has to be offended one way or another and that has to avoided at all costs.
1
@tnbreilly
In 1947, the scholars at Al-Azhar University (The highest authority in Sunni Islam.) declared holy war to return Palestine to Islamic rule. Imagine if they hadn't. People compromise, but when religion is involved they would feel guilty about compromise so they won't.
Suppose Scotland declared independence. Should England attack Scotland. If England attacked Scotland, but failed to conquer Scotland, should England fire thousands of unguided rockets at Scottish population centers - a crime against humanity? Should England set Scottish crops on fire - a war crime? Should England pay people to murder Scots - the more Scots they kill, the more money they get?
1
@tnbreilly
The UN did not "set up" the state of Israel. It recommended partition of Palestine into a Jewish state in Jewish majority areas, and an Arab state in Arab majority areas. The mayhem that followed originated with the Arabs who launched a war rather than accept the partition plan. Read some unbiased history.
2
@tnbreilly
It's not true that the land was inhabited mostly by Palestinians.
Besides that, it is the indigenous homeland of the Jewish people, and Jews never gave up their hopes of returning to it.
3
A path forward seems obvious, but is not what is written here. Israel should unilaterally implement the basic outlines of what everyone knows the eventual settlement should be - i.e. annex those settlements that everyone acknowledges are permanent, evacuate all other settlements, end all new settlement activities, work to help, rather than hinder the Palestinians to develop economically and to build good governance, and to remain in full military control until they feel confident in how the Palestinian state has evolved, no matter how long that takes.
13
@Pacu: If you were a member of an occupied population would you ever accept your proposal?? Just give them a bit of money and keep occupying them and rob them of their land for "as long as it takes"! They should be grateful for that, right? Good proposal!!!
1
@ADRz
If I were under an occupation that I found intolerable, I would do what I needed to bring it to an end as soon as possible. What do you think is a reasonable and realistic option that they should accept and can obtain?
The failure of the Gaza withdrawal is due to the lack of coordination with the PA. Sharon did not want the PA to get credit for it It became NO-MAN's land and the vacuum was filled by Hamas. useful for building up a counter power
against the PA
Coordination would have brought about an orderly
transfer and peace to the area
17
@asell1 Right, we certainly can't expect the people of Gaza to accept responsibility for the government of Gaza.
1
@asell1
If Israel only withdrew from Gaza after agreement for withdrawal was reached, they would still be on the ground there.
1
Paving roads and giving Palestinians movement is not a path to a solution. It is beautification of Apartheid. If there is no plan for peace, no openness to one state, no commitment to a Palestinian state, no openness to withdrawal, then what is envisioned is continued Israeli control over the lives of Palestinians who have limited rights. That is Apartheid.
Gaza is a faulty comparison as the “withdrawal” was not a turning over of power. It was rather a redeployment where Israel maintained control and Palestinian lives became harder. That wasn’t a generous gift, but simply a shift in the form of occupation. In that situation, where Israel continued to use daily military force against Gaza, expecting silence and nonviolence from Gaza was never realistic. A withdrawal might work, but it can’t be one that is done simply on Israeli terms.
Lebanon also isn’t a good example. There are of course problems with the way that the Lebanese political system is structured, but the problem isn’t simply about the fact that the groups in the country can’t co-exist. Rather, the structure of the system sets groups into conflict with one another. That also could be avoided in a one state system where peoples’ rights were actually respected. But that isn’t what is envisioned here because this article isn’t based on the idea that Palestinians and Israelis are equal.
67
@Merlot: I fully agree with you. There are better examples than Lebanon and some of these can be found in Europe. Bosnia is still unified and the Serb, Croat and Muslim territories are slowly getting better at cooperating despite the ugliness of a recent conflict.
2
@del The withdrawal from Gaza without coordination with the PA was essentially predetermined by Sharon to end in a chaotic and unfortunate "Palestinian" enclave to provide evidence for why Israel must permanently occupy the West Bank. The end result has succeeded in ways that Sharon probably only dreamed of and hence the current insoluble state.
1
@Merlot One thing you wrote is correct. There is not and never will be "openness to one state."
What a series of problems! The author doesn't address the biggest one: the occupation. Israel continues to grab land from the Palestinians for settlements. Youthful settlement thugs uproot olive trees on Palestinian lands, harass and injure Palestinians, vandalize mosques, churches, businesses, and vehicles, and get away with impunity. They aren't punished. Add to this the fact that the Palestinians have no one to talk to regarding peace among the Israelis. Netanyahu doesn't want to give up any land in the West Bank. The Orthodox won't give an inch. And the "third way" is not really an option because the author doesn't even consider the Palestinians and what they want. It's a fiat, a colonialist act, a diktat, where the powerful (the Israelis) determine what the powerless (the Palestinians) would like. How about this instead: get both the Israelis and the Palestinians to listen to, understand, and respect the others' narrative about the land, that the Jews have had in their prayers for 2000 years to return to Jerusalem, and the Palestinians have had since 1948 the nakba. Perhaps one day there will be a united Israel-Palestine, along the lines of the French, German, and Italian cantons that make up Switzerland. But until both sides can come to terms with competing narratives, there will be no peace, "third way" or any way.
62
@Karen P. The biggest problem is not the occupation. The occupation is a symptom, not the cause. The biggest problem is that the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of Israel's existence. Some groups - BDS, for example - say that they take no position on whether there should be one state or two. But they insist on an unfettered right of return. That means turning the clock back to 1947 and earlier. Until Israel's right to exist is affirmed, and not just once but repeatedly until the past denials are no longer credible, there will not be peace - only an armistice.
27
@Karen P. There was no occupation in '48. There was not occupation before May '67. There has been no occupation in Gaza for nearly 20 years. Therefore?
The so-called occupation is what all countries do after a war, until the occupied areas calm down and start governing themselves in a civil manner and accept that the lost the war.
Since none of those criteria has occurred in Gaza and West Bank, the occupation continues. It is a rational act by Israel.
6
@Gary Marton Israel’s “ right to exist” has been confirmed, by the Palestinians and the Organization of Arab states. Of course, Netanyahu then moved the goal posts, demanding that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state, which should actually not be acceptable to anyone.
3
Israel should be obliged by the UN to withdraw from the Occupied Territories . By force if necessary, or be asked, politely , to leave the Institution. Why is Russia punished for the incorporation of Crimea ( which has always been Russian ) and Israel is left to act as if feels like it in the Golan Heights and the West Bank. All against international Law. They think that the rest of the world is blind and then they complain about a rise in antisemitism. What
hipocricy.
34
@AGC: when Syria controlled the Golan, Syria used the area to attack Israeli civilian targets, including homes and kindergartens. Since then, Syria has devolved into a warring society with rebel groups and the central government attaching each other. When Syria becomes at peace with itself, maybe its leadership can reach out to Israel and negotiate a peace treaty. Egypt showed the way over 40 years ago, negotiated peace with Israel, got Sinai back, and has lived side-by-side with Israel without war. Syria could, in principle, accomplish the same thing, but probably not under current leadership. Occupation is not against international law. The United States occupied Japan after WWII. This occupation is not good for either Israel or the Palestinians, but it's not reasonable to expect Israel to just withdraw from the West Bank. It will take many peace-enhancing measures on both sides before Israel withdraws as part of a negotiated peace with international security guarantees.
24
@AGC
Learn some history and law: Israel was attacked by Jordan across the whole armistice line of the West Bank in 1967, she took the territory in the counter attack that repulsed the Jordanians. Same on the Golan with Syria.
Thus legal for a military occupation of either territory.
Note that the applicable (legally binding) UN resolutions do not regard the occupation itself as illegal, but as an issue to be solved by negotiation.
23
@AGC The Crimea has NOT always been Russian. It was part of Ukraine until the Russians stole it. And saying this disqualifies anything else you say.
Nor does your comment address the proposal in the article under discussion. I am also not in agreement with it, but such statements weakens your cause.
3
If this “3rd way” goes forward, Palestinians will mourn two “nakbas” (literally, “disasters”): the first was in their view the establishment of the Israeli State. The second will be Arafat not taking the 2000 deal at Camp David. “Shrinking the conflict” may reduce acts of violence, and create limitedly better conditions for Palestinian prosperity. But it would yield no one’s dream of a nation state. It would likely leave the Palestinians short on water, electricity, and a viable port, let alone an airport. I’ve always resisted the Apartheid analogy with Israel/Palestine, because I believe Jews have an indigenous peopel’s right of return, and the legal legitimacy of of the UN declaration establishing a two state solution. But one cannot escape the analogy of the “bantustan” with the map that would result from “shrinking the conflict”.
6
@Michael In other words, Jews have a right to return to a land that they had largely abandoned (except in their prayers) thousands of years ago and now allowed to occupy a land which had been occupied by another indigenous group ( or other indigenous groups) for those thousands of years. And say, hi ! Here I am, I’m back. You’ve got to leave now.
1
Please explain to the children of Gaza why Lebanon's the messy democracy is a dystopic future to be avoided at all costs.
4
@Nabeel Lebanon exists permanently on the brink of civil war. Better than Gaza, yes, but hardly something to aspire to.
And for years Israeli votes for strong peacemakers such as Ehud Barak and the "tzadik" General Yitzak Rabin, z"l
5
Blue and White Party is not center left. Gantz has made it clear that he is fine with Likud as long as Netanyahu is not Likud’s leader, and by the time Bibi has worked his magic, don’t be shocked if Gantz agrees to unity government with Bibi staying PM. Blue and White is the kinder & gentler Likud or Likud Lite.
The center left is dead in Israel. Labor-Gesher got all of 4.8% of the votes and only 6 seats. And that’s Labor under Amir Peretz that formed alliance with brand new Gesher and Orly Levy, who was until recently a member (a moderate member) of secular nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu, led by potential king maker and racist Avigdor Lieberman. Labor and Peretz rejected alliance with liberal Meretz and Ehud Barak.
The truth is that Revisionist Zionism has won. Jabotinsky won. Begin and Shamir, who rejected the UN partition plan of Mandatory Palestine, as did the Arabs, has won. The Likud charter that rejects a Palestinian state has won.
Yes, the Palestinians killed the two-state peace also. From Rabin to Barak to Olmert (Sharon/Olmert broke away from Likud to form now dead Kadima Party), there was a real effort to two-state peace from the Israeli side - never the best deal for the Palestinians, but a legitimate attempt at peace. Arafat was a disaster. The second Intifada (triggered by Sharon, but fueled by Arafat) and Palestinian terrorism. Gaza and terrorist Hamas. Incompetent and corrupt PA and Abbas.
But Revisionist Zionism was never going to allow a two-state solution.
11
@MC
This seems like a fair summary. Alas for Israel and Palestine!
Israelis may think the status quo is good for the State of Israel, that they can continue to benefit endlessly from stolen lands and resources. This is a major fallacy as it ignores the basic foundation of the muslim religion: the endless battle against injustice.
JUSTICE is the only way to assure the future of the State of Israel.
8
@Greg
Come on Greg.
.
Even a cursory review of Muslim history shows that wherever it had the chance, Muslim nations always claimed it was an obligation to defeat the infidel and either insist on their conversion, death or the status of dhimmitude - i.e. limited permission to practice another religion as a 2nd class citizen.
1
@Greg. The "endless battle against injustice"? That must explain why Muslims refer to all lands not under their control as Dar al Harb - the House of War. It’s such an injustice that Islam does not rule the world.
The conflict has little to do with boundaries, especially since Palestinian Arabs were never sovereign over the land at any time. The conflict is not simply about non-Muslims being in control over Muslims, but it’s the hated, lowly despised "Jews" as described in their holy books. Israel, led by uppity Jews who simply don’t know their "divinely" inspired position at the bottom of the Muslim social hierarchy, is the West's front line.
1
@Greg
“Who can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine? Good Lord, historically it is really your country. What a wonderful spectacle that will be when a people as resourceful as the Jews will once again be an independent nation, honored and complacent, able to make its contribution to needy humanity in the field of morals, as in the past.”
Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi, the Arab mayor of Jerusalem, in 1899 in a letter to Zadok Kahn, the chief rabbi of France about the rights of Jews to self-determination in the land of the Jews.
1
The Arab population now identifying as Palestinian have made it perfectly clear that they cannot be trusted with independent statehood. Is there any doubt that Arabs...themselves the descendants of imperialist invaders, colonists, and 20th century economic migrants to a land not their own....are still trying to win the war they started 70+ years ago, and LOST?
And let’s not pretend that Jordan...the defacto Arab Palestinian state....doesn’t already occupy 80% of historic ‘Palestine’...100% Judenfrei. In other words, the two state solution already exists.
Land for no peace? Been there, done that, got over 20,000 Hamas rockets and a terrorist base camp on Israel’s southern border.
No. Like many other populations around the world, ‘limited autonomy’ is what the Arab ‘Palestinian’ shall have and... after a century of Arab terror wars perpetrated against Jews living upon their own ancestral ground....it’s more than they deserve.
29
The war is never lost until BOTH sides settled. Russians were 100 years under Mongol occupation, Spain more than 700 years under Arab occupation, Britain had the colonies for many years before it lost it.
1
Way too optimistic. Gantz might be able to do something but not with Netanyahu sticking a shiv in his ribs.
6
Interesting an American writer has come up with this.
By the way, Native Americans experienced all too well what happens when you decide to create artificial enclaves (we call "reservations") and cut them off from the rest of the nation. They also also tell you that the US Government did not honor any treaty they made with native Americans. And, that Native Americans were forced onto the most fallowed lands the US Government could fine. And, then when oils, gas, coal, metals, etc. were found on their land, they were moved to even more fallow lands.
There are a number of parallels between Native Americans/US, and Palestinians/Israel. Gaza and the West Bank are the most fallow lands within the West Bank, Israel and Gaza areas. Israeli settlements are create don the best lands, displacing Palestinians to less desirable lands.
The US, after, what amounted to genocide, accomplished their goal. The cleared most of the nation of native Americans, and too the land fro farming, livestock and extraction.
Thus, what is proposed here is a combination of West Berlin (circa Cold War) and US Native American reservations. Or, a version of "Jim Crow" and Apartheid.
Though, the Israeli far right, and Lakud have a final solution, ejects all Palestinians form what was once known as Palestine.
Apparently, after 71 years, Israel has grown too Zionist to realize to what they are doing is wrong, similar to what the US, Canada and Australia did with their First Nations Peoples.
32
@Nick Metrowsky
If you dig in Palestine, you will find ancient Jewish synagogues, ancient Jewish ritual baths & ancient Jewish coins.
If you dig in America, you will NOT find ancient Christian churches and ancient coins.
Jews have lived in Palestine for thousands of years.
Caucasians have not lived in America for thousands of years.
Palestinians oppressed Jews for centuries.
Native Americans did not oppress Europeans for centuries.
The European colonists had a mother country which protected them.
The European Jews did not have a mother country to protect them.
When Zionists moved to Palestine, there was a dramatic increase in the native population.
When European colonists came to America, there was a dramatic decrease in the Native population..
3
@Nick Metrowsky
You don't mean "fallow", you mean "infertile".
The analogy is obviously imperfect but it is very important, and virtually no Israeli Jews will be able to accept it. Just as few of us Americans really accept the facts of our conquest of the present U.S.A.
1
@Nick Metrowsky
"Israeli settlements are created on the best lands, displacing Palestinians to less desirable lands."
Most Israeli settlements have been built on uninhabited hilltops, not privately owned by Palestinians.
And the fact that land in Israel is less fallow than in the West Bank and Gaza speaks for itself, both in terms of what land Arabs were selling to Jews during the pre-Israel era, and what was subsequently done to develop it from its previously neglected state.
3
If this third way becomes a reality, all reasonable Palestinians— and I know many, even if they can’t openly express themselves due to safety concerns—will mourn not only the fist “Nachba”, but the second one when Arafat rejected the Camp David deal in 2000.
5
“Palestinian autonomous areas .......and give Palestinians full freedom to move across the West Bank .......give the Palestinian Authority more land for development around the major towns ......support the construction of new Palestinian towns ......promote the Palestinians’ economic independence and prosperity.”
Sounds to me like a preview and promotion of the Trump/Kushner/ Netanyahu so-called “deal of the century” in which Palestinian legal and human rights are bought by vast sums of money. These rights are not for sale.
8
Unfortunately, complete withdrawal by Israel from weak national Arab areas is a failure. The model for failure is not Gaza, where the Israelis still have control of the skies and 3/4 of the access (with Egypt controlling the other 1/4 super-rigidly), but Lebanon. Israel withdrew its soldiers from every inch of Lebanese soil on 24 May 2000. This was certified by the United Nations, no friend to Israel. What happened? Hezbollah rushed in, the Lebanese government and military sheds croc tears, and Israel now has 100,000 rockets aimed at her, and a terror force supporting Iranian hegemony in the region. You think Israel is going to pull out of the West Bank and withdraw air/land/sea access control to Gaza on that model? Think again. Would you?
25
Israel and the U.S. are both desperate to find unifying principles and are in the midst of painful transition periods. The real dividing issue in Israel is whether it is an independent shtetl, capable of doing what it wants while disregarding world opinion. If so, that enables the right wing to promote a future that many see as unethical and self-defeating. Ultimately the right wing's justification is that God gave the West Bank to the Jews and God will protect Jews if the West Bank is annexed. One can question the sanity of that reasoning, not long after the Holocaust where God did not intervene.
6
@SDG "One can question the sanity of that reasoning" is one of the all-time understatements.
1
This piece is silly. First, if the occupation of the West Bank were solely about security, there wouldn’t be all those settlements. If you are worried about terrorism, why plant civilians in the middle of the people you fear?
Second, the withdrawal from Gaza did pull settlers out, but Israel still controls the border and the sea and treats Gaza as a giant prison. They also shoot at Gazans who approach within a few hundred yards of the border and not just during their slaughters of demonstrators.
Security concerns cut both ways.
30
@Donald The West Bank occupation is now more about money and water than anything.
1
@Donald
After the Six Day War, many Israelis thought, correctly, that the Arabs would attack again. Some of them established outposts to be an early warning system. That's why most of the early settlements were on hilltops.
Gazans were coming into Israel & murdering Israelis. That's why Israel built the fence. If Palestinians would stop murdering Jews, then the fence could be taken down.
Palestinians have been trying to invade Israel to murder innocent Israelis. Invaders should be called "invaders,"
not demonstrators. Israel has every right to defend its citizens.
2
"Shrink the Conflict" may be possible.
End the conflict? Not possible.
To this day, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah state their goal is to destroy Israel.
Iran is building up its proxies to do just that: destroy Israel.
14
The author does not state the truth about the Gaza "withdrawal". Israel maintains control over the lives of Palestinians in Gaza & murders the residents there with impunity. It is the safety and security of Palestinians that is under greatest threat in Israel & Palestine. One state with equal rights for all citizens is the only solution.
11
@Said Assali
Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, has repeatedly commented that, "during its operation in Gaza, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare." Furthermore, he points out that the steps taken in that conflict by the Israeli Defence Forces to avoid civilian deaths are shown by a study published by the United Nations to have resulted in, by far, the lowest 18of civilian to combatant deaths in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare. Kemp explains that by UN estimates, the average ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide is 3:1 -- three civilians for every combatant killed. That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan. But in Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to have been 4:1. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia. In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/israel-gaza-operation-civilian
9
@m1945 I wouldn't take Jonathan Sacerdoti, the author of the linked article in the New Statesman, as an objective source. He's on one side.
@Said Assali
No Gazan would be killed or injured if Gazans were not firing unguided rockets at Israeli population centers - a crime against humanity, not setting Israeli crops on fire - a war crime, & not trying to invade Israel to murder innocent Israelis.
One state would soon be majority-Arab. What is the probability that a majority-Arab Israel would maintain its democracy?
Israel was ranked 30 out of 167 on The Economist's Democracy Index. That's better than Greece, Cyprus & at least a dozen other European countries.
The highest Arab state is Tunisia which is ranked 69. Palestine is 109, Libya 154, Sudan 155, Yemen 158, Saudi Arabia 159, Algeria 126, Egypt 127, Qatar 133, Oman 140, United Arab Emirates 147, Bahrain 148, Morocco 100, Lebanon 106, Iraq 114, Jordan 115, Kuwait 116, Comoros 121, Mauritania 119, Djibouti 146, Syria 166. Iran 150.
The probability that Israel would maintain its democracy is virtually ZERO.
3
The solution proposed in this column sounds more like grasping at straws than a real, viable solution.
3
@NIck - I don't think the author intends his suggestion to be a long-term solution, but rather a step on the way to one. (Whether it's a good suggestion is a separate question.)
1
You could have an unity government in Israel today if Netanyahu put Israel ahead of his own personal interests and power and stepped down and gave up leadership of Likud. Of course, Bibi will never do that - it’s always been Bibi first for Bibi. Netanyahu also needs to stay Prime Minister so he doesn’t end up in jail (and depending on what indictments, if any, are brought against him in October/November). Gantz has made it clear that he will not join a unity government if Netanyahu still leads Likud. Netanyahu has delivered for Israelis what the Israeli majority wants: security - no Palestinian Intifada or major terrorism; Palestinians living in some form of constant and forever occupation because they don’t deserve any better - Israeli version: they are terrorists, Arabs are inferior people incapable of democracy, Islam breeds terrorism, look what they did in Gaza after Israeli withdrawal; no international price for occupation: Netanyahu close to Trump, Putin, MBS, Sisi, ignores or destabilizes anyone who criticizes Netanyahu; Hamas and Hezbollah as forever threats but are never eliminated; Iran as forever existential threat but never a war risking Israeli soldiers: growing economy (with greater income inequality), no full annexation (he started to annex which is why he lost some support).
Stop saying Blue and White is center left - it’s not, it’s Likud without Bibi, Likud light.
The center left led by Labor for decades that actually wanted two-state peace is dead.
11
“Most Israelis are acutely aware of the trap they are in”.
… and what is the proposed solution.
“include paving a network of roads connecting all the Palestinian autonomous areas to each other, and transferring these roads to Palestinian Authority control.”
The elephant in the room is the unanswered question: who owns the control of the Palestinian Borders i.e can they have an airport and trade according to thier terms.
If it is the Israelis then what you are proposing is another Gaza strip in the West Bank. And it would be easier for the Palestinians to rebel.
We are heading towards a One State Solution. It is better to work towards a soft landing instead of being in a state of denial.
As for the unity govt, Gantz is waiting for Bibi to be indicted (maybe Tuesday). After which Likud will split. Bibi is in a corner and cannot escape.
5
@Deep Thought
One state is not a solution.
Arabs will soon be a majority in one state & Jews will be a minority. How do Jews fare when Palestinians are the majority? Look at history. Look back before the first Zionist arrived. How was life for the Jews?
The Jews “walked with a shuffling, cringing step that told of blows received and blows expected. No one could mistake the difference between oppressor and oppressed—“between those poor creatures and the Arabs who jostled them in these crowded alleys, …. The Arabs stride along with a spring in every step.”
There were rules: Jews had to pass Muslims on their left side, because that was the side of Satan. They had to yield the right of way, step off the pavement to let the Arab go by, above all make sure not to touch him in passing, because this could provoke a violent response. In the same way, anything that reminded the Muslim of the presence of alternative religions, any demonstration of alternative forms of worship, had to be avoided so synagogues were placed in humble, hidden places, and the sounds of Jewish prayer carefully muted.
Sounds great, ... BUT
It DOES take 2 to make a change like this be viable - well, 3 if you say that Likud and Blue-and-White would obviously have to split some pretty messy differences between them.
Of course, the "counter-party" is Fatah or ? - seriously, who DOES represent the Palestinians these days? And how good a job are they doing?
But leaving that aside (with difficulty!), ANYBODY who is as reasonable as the author of this "plan" and is not Jewish is going to say, "We cannot settle for a better road system and the possibility that there will be a few West Bank millionaires. This is a much better 'deal' for Israel than it is for us."
I wish I had a better idea - "the smartest people on earth" have been stumped by some of the realities Mr. Goodman points out ... plus the ones he (unreasonably) leaves out!
I will say this - although I guess it's a third rail for an Israeli. An alliance between the 2 big Israeli parties MIGHT - over time - alter the stranglehold the haredim have on POLITICAL POLICY. (Others can point to the downside of their stranglehold on the large area that straddles the line between religious and secular - e.g., marriage!)
That is, if Orthodox young men (and women ?) served in the IDF, you'd have something like the revolution that school desegregation had in this country.
As it was here, there will/would be some extreme ugliness - Rabin=MLK for openers - but if/when "the Bible says" joins anti-vax as junk ideology, more ways forward will appear!
2
@pfusco
The majority of Orthodox men and women DO serve in the IDF.
You must be thinking of the Harerdi groups within the Orthodox community (what some call "Ultra-Orthodox"). The term Ultra-Orthodox is not used by the Harerdi but by Reform Jews, and some secular Jews in a pejorative sense. Even among the Harerdi, some are serving in the IDF.
1
How can an essay on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever be credible without a word of reference to international law and/or conventions of human rights. This omission automatically put the article in the dustbin.
2
@Greg
To which international laws and/or conventions of human rights are you referring? Please be specific.
Too many people, not enough space and resources.
The future of humanity. Unless we can somehow stop breeding like feral cats.
2
@Will.
Most of Israel is desert & the rest is semi-arid & yet Israel exports water. How? By recycling almost all water. The World should pay attention to how Israel does it because climate change will result in a shortage of fresh water for billions of people.
“Water shortages in the Palestinian Authority are the result of Palestinian policies that deliberately waste water and destroy the regional water ecology. The Palestinians refuse to develop their own significant underground water resources, build a seawater desalination plant, fix massive leakage from their municipal water pipes, build sewage treatment plants, irrigate land with treated sewage effluents or modern water-saving devices, or bill their own citizens for consumer water usage, leading to enormous waste. At the same time, they drill illegally into Israel’s water resources, and send their sewage flowing into the valleys and streams of central Israel. In short, the Palestinian Authority is using water as a weapon against the State of Israel. It is not interested in practical solutions to solve the Palestinian people’s water shortages, but rather perpetuation of the shortages and the besmirching of Israel.”
http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/truth-behind-palestinian-water-libels/
1
If a foreign power takes over New York City and after years of violent resistance the foreign power gives back Staten Island as a good will gesture expecting that would solve everything.......
Shouldn´t the rest of the US try to fix the problem ?
The UNITED NATIONS should take responsibility about the Palestinian Exodus. It did create Israel against all wise councils.
And IT IS NOW that it should be resolved, By force if necessary .
4
Spoken/written like a true colonizer. As usual, they are much more concerned with maintaining superiority than achieving equality.
11
"the left's generous offer" Is it any wonder that mainstream Israelis see the left as appeasers who would sell out their country for a peace and security that's never going to happen? There will never peace and security because the Palestinians regard Israel as "Occupied Palestine". That's why the average Israeli voter has been voting for conservative right wing governments which has kept Bibi Netanyahu as Prime Minister these years. Personally I'm beginning to see a third round of elections after the beginning of 2020 because neither Netanyahu nor Gantz have won enough seats in the Knesset to form the next government.
3
Wow! This is the first time I've read an analysis of the mideast chaos that's made sense to me. Mostly, it's been one side pointing fingers at the other side and how horrible they've been. Your analysis makes so much sense to me. I hope both sides are listening.
This essay tries to perpetuate the notion that the Israelis have total control over the fate of the Palestinian people. This is not the case.
5
Very insightful take on a possible path forward
1
Mr. Goodman's arguments are deceptive because of their omissions.
First, neither the Blue and White coalition or the Likud promised anything to the Palestinians. Netanyahu argued for annexation and Grantz argued for a tougher occupation.
Secondly, the issue of Israeli security has been the justification for the occupation for decades. Yet conditions are vastly different today than they were when this issue was first advanced.
Third, only the Israeli left has seriously advocated for a Palestinian state and they are now a tiny minority.
The issue facing Israel is gradual annexation vs rapid complete annexation. Both are based on the belief that Israeli security requires more territory and acquiring more Jewish only territory means the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
During the last Gaza demonstrations alone 250 Palestinians were killed, 7,500 seriously wounded.
Some thought peace in the region would flow from a fully integrated democratic Israel/Palestine. Others are simply pragmatic. Israel has already engaged in defacto annexation so that there is nothing left from which to create a Palestinian state.
Whether center right, or right, Israel's are just as determined to "get rid of the Palestinians" now as they were in 48 or 67.
The question is what do Americans think of all this? It's becoming increasingly difficult to claim support for human rights while pouring billions into policies of ethic cleansing.
They key to a resolution remains in Washington.
11
Read your history please. The Israelis agreed to a two state solution in 1948. The Palestinians and their Arab brethren refused and attacked Israel. They began this horrible cycle of violence. The blame belongs with the Arabs. If they had accepted the UN partition, they would have had their state 71 years ago and lived in peace side by side with Israel all these years. Most of the Arab states still refuse to accept Israel, as do the so-called Palestinians.
3
@Drspock So long as Washington is disproportionately influenced by AIPAC, energy interests and geopolitical hardliners, no viable resolution will come out of Washington.
@Drspock, When you state that,I "Israel's are just as determined to "get rid of the Palestinians" now as they were in 48 or 67", you show a profound ignorance of history. In 1948, Israel was attacked by the armies of its neighboring Arab States (and the Arabs lost). In 1967, Israel again fought a defensive war against Arab States that attacked it (and the Arabs lost).
2
Good creative proposal. What is missing is new Palestinian leadership that can emerge from three groups that have been mostly ignored. One is the 130,000 West Bank Palestinians who are now employed by Israeli companies. These workers are now a new middle class that is paid higher salaries without corruption. So among them may be leaders who are normalized with Israel. The second group is the mayors in the West Bank: Nablus, Jenin, Jericho, Ramallah are all cities that are currently governed by Palestinians. If Israel could enable these leaders to show results for their civic accomplishments by providing more assistance and support it would be a major development. The third group is the Israeli Arab professionals who are already integrated into Israel and can be the bridge for a new civil society and economic development that is Arab based.
Normalization, economic development, civic institutions all precede a peaceful Palestine that can be engaged with Israel. Our hope for their welfare can be turned into reality for them if new leaders can imagine a different future.
4
@jeff saperstein So economic co-opting will succeed in the long run? Pretty condescending and patronizing. So long as a right of return is limited to Jews and not available to Palestinians there will not be a lasting peace. Honor, dignity, respect and equality count more than money and shiny new toys.
1
@Rocky a good path towards honor, dignity, respect and equality begins with meaningful work and a living wage. Do not dismiss the value of economics as a means forward.
@jeff saperstein
It's not just the leaders.
Polls show that most Palestinians don't want a 2-state solution.
They want Palestine from the River to the Sea. In other words, no Israel.
1
This proposal implies Israeli control over Palestinians forever. Having 2.5M people without voting rights is the antithesis of democracy. Giving them a few sops is not nearly good enough. The fact that successive American administrations have done very little shows the shallowness of US commitment to democracy, other than to use it as a cover to bludgeon Muslim regimes it doesn't like.
6
@D Marcot
The Palestinian Authority has not had an election in many years. What should the US have done about that?
Certainly Palestinians should not be allowed to vote in Israeli elections. When we occupied Japan & Germany after world war 2, we didn't let the people of Japan & Germany vote in American elections. Rewarding Japanese & German aggression with American citizenship would encourage more aggression. Similarly, Israel should not reward Palestinian aggression with Israeli citizenship because that would encourage more aggression.
1
With a House impeachment looming, the Trump peace plan may not ever be revealed. I am assuming the logic behind that plan is similar in strategy to what Mr. Goodman suggests, shrinking the conflict, thus, possibly, allowing Palestinians to rethink their approach to what they need in a final deal, sans the all or nothing right of return nonsense and total elimination of the Jewish state. In truth, the only way to peace is in stages. But, it takes both sides to cooperate.
First thing the PA needs to do? Stop their pay to slay program. It literally kills any prospects of peace and reciprocity.
7
Micah Goodman's "third way" is similar to a proposal that he makes in his book "Catch 67". The proposal in his book has the PA being given nearly complete autonomy over these areas that are linked together so that Palestinians may move freely. It also calls for Israeli civilian governance in those areas that are largely Jewish. Palestinian residents would be given resident alien status and receive all the benefits of Israeli law. This is not a solution. It does not meaningfully address Palestinian aspirations. It is an attempt to detoxify the current situation. I recommend his book to anyone wishing to better understand the situation from the Israeli perspective.
2
"Just take a look at Lebanon for a look at life in a Middle Eastern country where no national group has a clear majority." Isn't Lebanon a nation as well as a county? And if so, how can a nation have more than one "national group?" A nation equals everybody in the nation equals the nation. Or maybe I'm just being too American.
5
You are being too American. Israeli Jews view their nation as the fulfillment of the Zionist dream as endorsed by the UN in 1947, namely the national home of the Jewish people. The Arabs view the Jews, even those they drove from Arab nations into Israel, as illegitimate occupiers. Neither group aspires to the American ideal of an agnostic melting pot that subsumes group identity. Frankly I am not sure even Americans accept that vision for our own country.
11
@Dr. B incredibly enough, the best solution (ideally...) would be this melting pot no one wishes to. Only when the two sides recognize each other as being "equal" and as having an equal right to exist , we will have a true solution of the conflict but as neither part wants it, all "solutions" proposed will be meaningless.
All very interesting suggestions, but they ignore the present dominance of Netanyahu's personal future in weighing any negotiations. A unity government needs his party's seats, but is correctly refusing to budge until he is held personally accountable for his corruption. Until Likud dumps him, or one of the other leaders compromises on allowing him to lead as a means to avoid his criminal fate, the stalemate continues.
8
While creative new ideas are always welcome, this article discusses Israelis negotiating with Israelis.
As long as the Palestinian leadership show no interest in negotiating for peace, and right now that is the case, the status quo will remain and there will be no meaningful advances towards a lasting peace.
30
Israel does all it can to ensure that there is no cohesion between the indigenous population. Divide and conquer whilst stealing more land.
6
@Rose
The Palestinian Authority forbids land sales to Jews. The punishment is death. So Palestinians make the transaction in Dearborn, MI, but say that Israel stole the land.
It takes two willing and empowered entities to make a real peace. It seems to me that Palestinians do not have a willingness to recognize the State of Israel to live in peace within secure borders, nor does Palestinian leadership have the desire and power to make that happen.
I is, indeed, an intractable problem.
41
@Rockaway Pete It takes two willing and empowered entities to make a real peace. It seems to me that Israelis do not have a willingness to recognize the right of Palestinians to live in peace within secure borders, nor does Israeli leadership have the desire to make that happen.
8
Leiberman won't participate in a government with the ultra-orthodox. If Netanyahu isn't PM, he goes to jail; he will do anything to avoid going to jail. Netanyahu has always worked with the ultra-orthodox and he has promised to continue to do so. The solution will be: Netanyahu and Glantz rotate premiership in a new coalition, with Netanyahu going first. Leiberman joins in, making a majority. Netanyahu throws the ultra-orthodox under the bus. Status quo for the Israeli Arabs continues.
1
Perhaps too idealistic. The reality is that Netanyahu needs the shield of the prime ministership to protect himself from the all-too-understandable criminal charges against him (sound familiar?), and his political party will act in lockstep to accomplish this (still sound familiar?). And it is fantasy to imagine that Blue-White is left-of-center. So does Israel want a center-right/far-right coalition with Netanyahu the Crook still in charge? Two elections said no, and now there will probably be a third. In some ways, no government is better than what is being proposed. If/when Rivlin's offer to Netanyahu doesn't bear fruit, will we see Gantz given his chance? And then might something be possible? Otherwise, it's on to new elections.
3
Gantz has a smaller coalition than Netanyahu. If he managed a unity government without Netanyahu and the religious right it would surely fall in a matter of weeks or months.
Here in the US we watch demographic changes closely. The Israeli religious right populations are growing faster than all the others groups. They are very resistant to changes being forced on them from the outside. They are the future.
2
An interesting proposal but one which also has obvious drawbacks. The new "transportational" routes could also be used for nefarious and violent purposes.
But all of this thinking does make the absolutely valid point that finding a "third way" would be a fruitful exercise if for no other reason than to focus thinking of all parties on something different from destroying the other: A positive move in an otherwise arid and hopeless environment.
8
Gaza and Lebanon were both created by Israeli policy. Blockades, interventions, invasions and plenty of bombing were used to keep these areas weak and destroy any chance that a neighboring Arab state might develop in peace and prosperity because the right in Israel fears its neighbors and wants to use them as examples to justify its need to dominate the area.
27
@Chris Martin
Really?! Yes, Israel has a lot that one might fairly "hold against them" - but it's a big stretch, i.m.o., to blame "Lebanon" on them. Yes, some of their policies moved the needle in that direction, but for a root cause, one needn't look further than Lebanon's being a French colony - is Haiti in even worse shape?? - and the country never having bridged the enormous divide between Islam and Christianity.
Add to that the fissures in "Arab society" along degrees of religious extremism - uncannily like those on the other side of Lebanon's southern border - and we can only be thankful that most would agree that life there is better than in Turkey, Syria or Iraq!
3
@Chris Martin I don't see how you can blame Israel for Gaza situation. Israel withdrew from Gaza and Hamas immediately took it over and declared war on Israel. If Hamas declared peace then Gaza could develop as you suggest. But that's impossible when Hamas is constantly shooting rockets and digging tunnels into Israel.
13
The article conveniently ignores the fact that Gaza was turned into essentially a huge prison camp cut off from the outside world.
7
Fifty years ago, there was an all night talk show with guests on New York radio called The Long John Nebel show. John Nebel, who was an atheist, would sometimes invite a panel consisting of three Rabbis, one Orthodox, one Conservative, and one Reform. Everything would start out calm, peaceful and friendly, but by 2:30 AM the rabbis were at each other's throats.
Somehow, that is how I imagine the unity government would go, especially if the fringe parties lose their undue power by being excluded from the coalition.
28
Long John was great listening as well as other WNBC talk radio hosts, i.e. Brad Crandall, Big Wilson and Bill Mazer. While often contentious the discussion was interesting and thought provoking. I’m showing my age, but miss those discussions.
4
Every commentary I've seen indicates that the Israeli "left" and a return to negotiating a two-state solution wasn't represented in the election by Blue and White and isn't part of negotiations for a unity government. The differences are mainly in the parties' attitude toward immunizing Netanyahu from corruption charges and including the ultra-Orthodox parties. As far as peace with the Palestinians in the occupied territories, the article has some interesting things to say, but none of the participants in unity negotiations seem very interested in that discussion. Everybody in the talks is on the right, and none of them have a plausible plan for resolving the business of the occupation while respecting the political rights of the Palestinians who live there. The optimism here seems misplaced.
44
For so long as people feel inherently superior to others, peace and true justice is impossible.
90
@Robert Mescolotto
People feeling inherently superior to others is only a small part of the problem and, IMHO, very few people on either side in the middle east feel superior. The two bigger problems are (1) people who believe that their religion is the one true religion and, therefore, that all other religions are false and (2) people fearing others. The last (fear) is almost certainly the biggest problem. The article even points this out: Israelis fear that any Palestinian state would be used as a base to fire missiles at them. Of course, they may be right about that. Sometimes, fear is completely rational but that does not make it any less a problem.
27
@David Friedlander
I like your comment a lot. Very thought provoking. I’m Jewish, raised a Zionist, and have Israeli family of ALL stripes —secular peaceniks, secular militarists, ultra-orthodox West Bank settlers, traditional orthodox who don’t believe Israel should be in existence until “messiah comes”, secular “I don’t care—just let me live my life” types, etc.. I also have close Palestinian friends of more than 30 years, one of whom I am in business with here in the USA, and his mother I consider my second mother. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t ask myself why it is that this group of Jews and Arabs (and many others like it) can get along united in affection and trust, and yet no one sees a path forward on a political or structural level. Not even us when we are socializing. Perhaps the reality that all seeds sprout in darkness provides some sort of ineffable sense of hope. To return to your point, David: together as guests in each other’s homes and communities, there is no fear. Separated: fear, mistrust, cynicism, anger and even hatred due to those who have been killed take over.
14
@Robert Mescolotto
On one side, or both?
2