Antony Loewenstein succumbs to the reality that the two-state solution is vast becoming extinct.
"So, where to from here? When I wrote my book, My Israel Question in 2006, I argued reluctantly that a two-State solution in Palestine was probably the best option because a majority of Israelis and Palestinians appeared to support it. Now, in the updated edition of the book, I question my own prejudices and conclude that a bi-national State is both more ethical and likely.
The reasons are deceptively simple. There is little likelihood that Israel will give up its addiction to land acquisition in the West Bank anytime soon — indeed, Western policies are helping the Jewish State complete its colonial project. In a matter of years, Palestinians will outnumber Jews in both Israel and Palestine, making Jews a minority. This is an apartheid State by definition, as Israel will still rule over millions of Palestinians."
How could it be possible though when it's overwhelming that basically no one in Israel supports the dismantling of its Zionist idealogy?
"But there is little opposition among the majority of Jews for Israel’s current path. This is nothing new, of course, but it’s revealing. Most Jews appear unfazed by Israel’s gradual transformation into a garrison State which is loathed by most of the world and is armed to the teeth by the world’s only superpower."
They want to give up as little as possible; or better yet, nothing at all. Why stop when the world just sits back and lets Israel act without accountability?
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
How the West Bank looks now
Map courtesy of The Saif House.
"The reality today may be depressing but we should never lose hope. Many oppressive regimes with incredible criminal power and no morality like Israel have been defeated before, as South Africa clearly shows. As long as people from all over the world continue to work to support justice in Palestine there is no doubt that Israel’s despicable apartheid regime will fare no better than its counterpart in South Africa."
Deliberate Cleansing
Regis Debray sent the French authorities a document on Palestine emphasising again that the reality on the ground has put the two-state solution in serious jeorpardy.
"The maps show that the physical, economic and human basis for a viable Palestinian state is disappearing. The two-state solution and Israeli writer Amos Oz's "fair divorce" (a territory shared between two national homes, one smaller than the other and demilitarised but sovereign, viable and continuous) are now empty phrases belonging to the realm of might-have-been. Some might argue that we have not yet reached the point of no return and that the Israelis may have won the territorial battle (with only 22% of British mandate Palestine now outside their control) but the Palestinians are sure to win the demographic battle. They invoke the resilience of the local population in the face of the steam roller that is slowly but surely implementing the 1968 Allon Plan and the 1984 "Road Plan 50".
It is clear from developments on the ground that:
o the purpose of the security wall is not, as is believed, to trace a border that, however illegal (since it encloses over 10% of the West Bank), will at least serve as the dotted line for a future international frontier;
o it is true (as Ehud Omert said on Israeli army radio on 20 March 2006) that Israel's strategic border lies on the Jordan: the whole valley has been declared a forbidden area and the intervening area has been nibbled away (cross-river transit is only possible at certain points);
o the new east-west bypass roads built at the expense of the old north-south axis clearly chart a territory in the process of annexation, with space for three or four Arab bantustans (Jenin, Ramallah and Jericho). The exhaustion of natural resources in these overcrowded enclaves will eventually lead to massive emigration (much of the elite, especially Christian, has already left); and
o with the construction of the separation wall, the ongoing judaisation of East Jerusalem and reconfiguration of the Jerusalem municipality, the UN's repeated but purely formal condemnations have no effect on Israel's grip on the whole city."
Obvious to the rest of us. What about Oslo and the Road Map?
"Understanding how public opinion works in a democracy, successive Israeli governments of the left and right take care to administer regular painkillers, plans for unilateral withdrawal or the partial dismantlement of settlements and encouraging announcements that are always conditional and come to nothing. The media live from day to day, with no attempt to remember. Who now recalls that the road map (3) was supposed to be "a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005"?
The Oslo process did not just remain a dead letter: with the military reoccupation of Zones A and B (4) in April 2002, it went into reverse."
Dare we repeat ourselves?
"What is taking shape is not the Palestinian state announced and desired by all: it is an as yet unperceived Israeli territory enclosing three self-governing Palestinian enclaves."
Who can stop the bleeding? The EU? Maybe not.
"Is this situation tenable to the end of the century? It seems doubtful, given Israel's obsession with security, which makes it less secure, and its disregard for the demographic and religious trends in the region. Could not at least one European government convey to our Israeli friends that we are not all taken in by the deception, and that those who deceive may not be its first victims - but will certainly be its last?"
"The maps show that the physical, economic and human basis for a viable Palestinian state is disappearing. The two-state solution and Israeli writer Amos Oz's "fair divorce" (a territory shared between two national homes, one smaller than the other and demilitarised but sovereign, viable and continuous) are now empty phrases belonging to the realm of might-have-been. Some might argue that we have not yet reached the point of no return and that the Israelis may have won the territorial battle (with only 22% of British mandate Palestine now outside their control) but the Palestinians are sure to win the demographic battle. They invoke the resilience of the local population in the face of the steam roller that is slowly but surely implementing the 1968 Allon Plan and the 1984 "Road Plan 50".
It is clear from developments on the ground that:
o the purpose of the security wall is not, as is believed, to trace a border that, however illegal (since it encloses over 10% of the West Bank), will at least serve as the dotted line for a future international frontier;
o it is true (as Ehud Omert said on Israeli army radio on 20 March 2006) that Israel's strategic border lies on the Jordan: the whole valley has been declared a forbidden area and the intervening area has been nibbled away (cross-river transit is only possible at certain points);
o the new east-west bypass roads built at the expense of the old north-south axis clearly chart a territory in the process of annexation, with space for three or four Arab bantustans (Jenin, Ramallah and Jericho). The exhaustion of natural resources in these overcrowded enclaves will eventually lead to massive emigration (much of the elite, especially Christian, has already left); and
o with the construction of the separation wall, the ongoing judaisation of East Jerusalem and reconfiguration of the Jerusalem municipality, the UN's repeated but purely formal condemnations have no effect on Israel's grip on the whole city."
Obvious to the rest of us. What about Oslo and the Road Map?
"Understanding how public opinion works in a democracy, successive Israeli governments of the left and right take care to administer regular painkillers, plans for unilateral withdrawal or the partial dismantlement of settlements and encouraging announcements that are always conditional and come to nothing. The media live from day to day, with no attempt to remember. Who now recalls that the road map (3) was supposed to be "a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005"?
The Oslo process did not just remain a dead letter: with the military reoccupation of Zones A and B (4) in April 2002, it went into reverse."
Dare we repeat ourselves?
"What is taking shape is not the Palestinian state announced and desired by all: it is an as yet unperceived Israeli territory enclosing three self-governing Palestinian enclaves."
Who can stop the bleeding? The EU? Maybe not.
"Is this situation tenable to the end of the century? It seems doubtful, given Israel's obsession with security, which makes it less secure, and its disregard for the demographic and religious trends in the region. Could not at least one European government convey to our Israeli friends that we are not all taken in by the deception, and that those who deceive may not be its first victims - but will certainly be its last?"
Not Only Territory, But Viability
Israeli dissident Jeff Halper analyses the so-called generous offers that is put on the table to make sure that a Palestinian state beside Israel is one that has no means of contiguity and just another attempt to legalise the status quo of a split Palestine into enclaves and Bantustans.
The Catch in Israel's "Generous Offers" at Jericho
By Jeff Halper
On paper, the headlines sound promising, even stirring. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas at their meeting in Jericho that he would push for the establishment of a Palestinian state as "fast as possible" on “the equivalent to 100 percent of the territories conquered in 1967.” The Palestinians, according to the report, would cede just 5% of the West Bank in return for territorial swaps. In other words, Israel would withdraw from 95.6 % of the combined West Bank and Gaza -- although whether Olmert includes East Jerusalem in this calculation is unknown.
It looks like another “generous offer,” one the Palestinians could not possibly refuse. "The aim is to achieve US President George Bush's vision of two countries for two peoples, living in security and peace side by side" based on the road map, Olmert said, adding “We want to achieve this as soon as possible."
What could be bad about such a plan? Well, the devil, we all know, is in the details. At issue is not a Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100% of the Occupied Territories (that is, we should note, only 22% of historic Palestine), but, as the road map specifies, a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state -- plus we must add, resolution of the refugee issue, which cannot be swept under the table. What is the potential “catch” here? What details of sovereignty and viability do we have to notice before we embrace this new generous offer with both arms?
Sovereignty
The basis for negotiations, says Olmert, “will continue to be the road map, which is acceptable to both sides." This is true in general, but with some major caveats. Phase II of the road map is the Palestiniansí nightmare, and they have constantly pressed to have it removed. This phase calls for the establishment of a “transitional” Palestinian state with “provisional borders.”
If all is quiet, they fear, and Israel can claim that a Palestinian state exists and that the Occupation has ended, who could guarantee that the road map process would continue into Phase III, where the thorny final status details are to be negotiated and a real Palestinian state would emerge?
Their fears are justified -- and this may be the “catch.” Israel considers its “14 reservations” as integral parts of the road map. Reservation # 5 states:
“The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum.”
Read that again and try to square that reservation with the notion of Palestinian sovereignty. Tzipi Livni has worked for months on what she is calling “The Israeli Initiative for a Two-State Solution” based precisely on replacing Phase I of the road map (which calls for a freeze on Israeli settlement building) with this problematic Phase II. Rice has said that the Bush Administration will work towards a provisional Palestinian state, leaving “the details” to the next administration.
A state has no sovereignty without borders. In additional to the problem of provisionality, does Olmert intend to grant the Palestinians an unsupervised border with Jordan? If Israel insists on controlling the borders, or if the Jordan River is part of the 5% the Palestinians must cede, there is no Palestinian state even if they receive all the territory.
Viability
Israel may indeed relinquish 95% of the West Bank but still remain in complete control over a Palestinian Bantustan with no viable economy. If it insists on controlling the borders, denying the Palestinians free movement of goods and people, the Palestinian state is not viable. If the 5% the Palestinians must cede includes a corridor across the West Bank, or if Israel insists on keeping the Maíaleh Adumim settlement with its “E-1” corridor to Jerusalem, thus destroying the territorial continuity of a Palestinians state, it is not viable. If it includes Israeli control of all the water resources, it is not viable. If Jerusalem is not fully integrated into the Palestinian state politically, geographically and economically -- and I would bet that the core of East Jerusalem falls outside the 95% -- then there is no viable Palestinian state. According to the World Bank Jerusalem accounts for up to 40% of the Palestinian economy because of tourism, their largest potential industry.
The difference between a truly sovereign and viable Palestinian state and a Bantustan is a few percentage points of strategic territory. Israel has couched its rule over the territories in “facts on the ground,” a complex matrix of control. Only by paying careful attention to the details will we be able to prevent Olmert and Rice, supported by Bush and Blair, from finessing a permanent regime of apartheid in the guise of a two-state solution.
It would be extremely helpful if the Palestinian Authority would raise publicly its concerns over the issues of sovereignty and viability instead of giving Olmert an uncontested field in which he can make initiatives and produce PR spin that only put the Palestinians on the defensive. The lack of a strong, official Palestinian voice is not only puzzling, it weakens the ability of all of us non-Palestinians to advocate effectively for a just peace. Israel banks on Palestinian refusal of what it presents as very generous offers indeed. Palestinians reject these schemes for good and solid reasons but never articulate them, leaving the public with the impression Israel really has “no partner for peace.” That must change, and urgently.
Would it be too much to ask, in the same breath, that the PA initiate a pro-active plan of its own, putting Israel on the defensive? In the meantime, we Israeli advocates for a just peace, together with our articulate partners of the Palestinian and international civil societies, will continue to watch carefully that devil in the details.
The Catch in Israel's "Generous Offers" at Jericho
By Jeff Halper
On paper, the headlines sound promising, even stirring. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas at their meeting in Jericho that he would push for the establishment of a Palestinian state as "fast as possible" on “the equivalent to 100 percent of the territories conquered in 1967.” The Palestinians, according to the report, would cede just 5% of the West Bank in return for territorial swaps. In other words, Israel would withdraw from 95.6 % of the combined West Bank and Gaza -- although whether Olmert includes East Jerusalem in this calculation is unknown.
It looks like another “generous offer,” one the Palestinians could not possibly refuse. "The aim is to achieve US President George Bush's vision of two countries for two peoples, living in security and peace side by side" based on the road map, Olmert said, adding “We want to achieve this as soon as possible."
What could be bad about such a plan? Well, the devil, we all know, is in the details. At issue is not a Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100% of the Occupied Territories (that is, we should note, only 22% of historic Palestine), but, as the road map specifies, a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state -- plus we must add, resolution of the refugee issue, which cannot be swept under the table. What is the potential “catch” here? What details of sovereignty and viability do we have to notice before we embrace this new generous offer with both arms?
Sovereignty
The basis for negotiations, says Olmert, “will continue to be the road map, which is acceptable to both sides." This is true in general, but with some major caveats. Phase II of the road map is the Palestiniansí nightmare, and they have constantly pressed to have it removed. This phase calls for the establishment of a “transitional” Palestinian state with “provisional borders.”
If all is quiet, they fear, and Israel can claim that a Palestinian state exists and that the Occupation has ended, who could guarantee that the road map process would continue into Phase III, where the thorny final status details are to be negotiated and a real Palestinian state would emerge?
Their fears are justified -- and this may be the “catch.” Israel considers its “14 reservations” as integral parts of the road map. Reservation # 5 states:
“The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum.”
Read that again and try to square that reservation with the notion of Palestinian sovereignty. Tzipi Livni has worked for months on what she is calling “The Israeli Initiative for a Two-State Solution” based precisely on replacing Phase I of the road map (which calls for a freeze on Israeli settlement building) with this problematic Phase II. Rice has said that the Bush Administration will work towards a provisional Palestinian state, leaving “the details” to the next administration.
A state has no sovereignty without borders. In additional to the problem of provisionality, does Olmert intend to grant the Palestinians an unsupervised border with Jordan? If Israel insists on controlling the borders, or if the Jordan River is part of the 5% the Palestinians must cede, there is no Palestinian state even if they receive all the territory.
Viability
Israel may indeed relinquish 95% of the West Bank but still remain in complete control over a Palestinian Bantustan with no viable economy. If it insists on controlling the borders, denying the Palestinians free movement of goods and people, the Palestinian state is not viable. If the 5% the Palestinians must cede includes a corridor across the West Bank, or if Israel insists on keeping the Maíaleh Adumim settlement with its “E-1” corridor to Jerusalem, thus destroying the territorial continuity of a Palestinians state, it is not viable. If it includes Israeli control of all the water resources, it is not viable. If Jerusalem is not fully integrated into the Palestinian state politically, geographically and economically -- and I would bet that the core of East Jerusalem falls outside the 95% -- then there is no viable Palestinian state. According to the World Bank Jerusalem accounts for up to 40% of the Palestinian economy because of tourism, their largest potential industry.
The difference between a truly sovereign and viable Palestinian state and a Bantustan is a few percentage points of strategic territory. Israel has couched its rule over the territories in “facts on the ground,” a complex matrix of control. Only by paying careful attention to the details will we be able to prevent Olmert and Rice, supported by Bush and Blair, from finessing a permanent regime of apartheid in the guise of a two-state solution.
It would be extremely helpful if the Palestinian Authority would raise publicly its concerns over the issues of sovereignty and viability instead of giving Olmert an uncontested field in which he can make initiatives and produce PR spin that only put the Palestinians on the defensive. The lack of a strong, official Palestinian voice is not only puzzling, it weakens the ability of all of us non-Palestinians to advocate effectively for a just peace. Israel banks on Palestinian refusal of what it presents as very generous offers indeed. Palestinians reject these schemes for good and solid reasons but never articulate them, leaving the public with the impression Israel really has “no partner for peace.” That must change, and urgently.
Would it be too much to ask, in the same breath, that the PA initiate a pro-active plan of its own, putting Israel on the defensive? In the meantime, we Israeli advocates for a just peace, together with our articulate partners of the Palestinian and international civil societies, will continue to watch carefully that devil in the details.
Friday, August 3, 2007
The Other War
Everyone is familiar with Iraq Body Counts, but what about The Afghan Body Count? Most of the public has turned on Iraq but Afghanistan slipped completely right off the mindframe.
"According to what little information is available, U.S. and NATO-led forces appear to be responsible for a growing number of civilian deaths. Despite its reluctance to quantify the situation, the United Nations publicly reported on June 2 that its data indicates "the number of (civilian) deaths attributed to pro-government forces marginally exceeds that caused by anti-government forces."
Could anyone connect the fact that the West does not hold Afghani lives with respect to their own (white) kiln?
"When questioned about whether or not the Department of Defense maintains any records of Afghan civilian deaths, a DOD official stated that they maintain documentation on U.S. military personnel only.
The British Ministry of Defense replied similarly to an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, stating that it "does not maintain records that would enable a definitive number of civilian fatalities to be recorded."
How can we still wonder why they might be a little angry? Those evil Islamists.
"According to what little information is available, U.S. and NATO-led forces appear to be responsible for a growing number of civilian deaths. Despite its reluctance to quantify the situation, the United Nations publicly reported on June 2 that its data indicates "the number of (civilian) deaths attributed to pro-government forces marginally exceeds that caused by anti-government forces."
Could anyone connect the fact that the West does not hold Afghani lives with respect to their own (white) kiln?
"When questioned about whether or not the Department of Defense maintains any records of Afghan civilian deaths, a DOD official stated that they maintain documentation on U.S. military personnel only.
The British Ministry of Defense replied similarly to an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, stating that it "does not maintain records that would enable a definitive number of civilian fatalities to be recorded."
How can we still wonder why they might be a little angry? Those evil Islamists.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Abbas' West Bank
With Hamas doing its best to keep order in the Gaza Strip after expelling all of the collaborators of US and Israel, what's the West Bank like? Stanley Heller gives some insight:
"On the West Bank things are different. There are checkpoints all over with soldiers carrying large deadly looking weapons. People say the checkpoints have been easier this summer. It's part of the "Make Nice with Abbas" strategy that's no being pursued by Israelis and the US. After years of ignoring the Palestinian President the takeover of Gaza by Hamas has forced a change in strategy. One month of the millions in Palestinian tax money that the Israeli s have been withholding has been "generously" given to the Palestine Authority.
Things are not that nice in the West Bank. Israeli soldiers stage constant raids. The night before we went to Jenin they captured a resident. People in Nablus say there's a raid every day. A few nights night ago six Palestinians were killed, including three by missiles in Gaza. One man supposedly attacked soldiers at a Bethlehem checkpoint. He was hit by gun butts and then shot to death."
The occupation seems to be an invisible reality after the battle between Hamas and Fatah. There are reports of Israeli troops letting them fly in Nablus. Another casualty at a checkpoint in Ramallah. Further encroachment of Palestinian lands continues unabated. There is no condemnation for the territorial expansion: in fact, they've openly expressed their desire to do such a thing (UN violation anyone?).
But that's no surprise is it?
"Traveling around Israel (as defined by the now non-existent 1967 borders) I saw no evidence of a country girded for battle. (Admittedly I haven't been to Sderot where the Qassem rockets strike.). I thought I'd see tons of soldiers on duty but the only ones I saw were buying refreshments, shopping or being revved up about the holocaust at Vad Yashem. Michael Warshawsky, veteran Israeli peace activist, says I'm not wrong. News about Palestinians is not page one, he says, but page four."
They're so inured by occupying Palestinians that they don't even merit a second thought.
"On the West Bank things are different. There are checkpoints all over with soldiers carrying large deadly looking weapons. People say the checkpoints have been easier this summer. It's part of the "Make Nice with Abbas" strategy that's no being pursued by Israelis and the US. After years of ignoring the Palestinian President the takeover of Gaza by Hamas has forced a change in strategy. One month of the millions in Palestinian tax money that the Israeli s have been withholding has been "generously" given to the Palestine Authority.
Things are not that nice in the West Bank. Israeli soldiers stage constant raids. The night before we went to Jenin they captured a resident. People in Nablus say there's a raid every day. A few nights night ago six Palestinians were killed, including three by missiles in Gaza. One man supposedly attacked soldiers at a Bethlehem checkpoint. He was hit by gun butts and then shot to death."
The occupation seems to be an invisible reality after the battle between Hamas and Fatah. There are reports of Israeli troops letting them fly in Nablus. Another casualty at a checkpoint in Ramallah. Further encroachment of Palestinian lands continues unabated. There is no condemnation for the territorial expansion: in fact, they've openly expressed their desire to do such a thing (UN violation anyone?).
But that's no surprise is it?
"Traveling around Israel (as defined by the now non-existent 1967 borders) I saw no evidence of a country girded for battle. (Admittedly I haven't been to Sderot where the Qassem rockets strike.). I thought I'd see tons of soldiers on duty but the only ones I saw were buying refreshments, shopping or being revved up about the holocaust at Vad Yashem. Michael Warshawsky, veteran Israeli peace activist, says I'm not wrong. News about Palestinians is not page one, he says, but page four."
They're so inured by occupying Palestinians that they don't even merit a second thought.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Why Hamas will last over Abbas
Mark Perry of Conflicts Forum has written on why Hamas, and not Fatah, will be the party that will remain untarnished after all the civil unrest of the month of June.
"...they have absolutely no prospect of success.
Instead, Abu Mazen will fail to solidify his position as President of the Palestinian Authority; the American program to support him will fail; there will be no international conference; and, within the next sixty to ninety days — and almost certainly by the end of the year — Abu Mazen and his colleagues will either be forced into exile or will take steps to reconstitute the national unity government that they have spent the last 60 days destroying."
The message is rather elementary: Hamas won an election and has the support of the majority in both Gaza and the West Bank (the elections were there too), despite what the latest polling results show. Ignoring them and hoping that Palestinians will hold Hamas accountable, and not the outside forces who are attempting to control Palestinian affairs by dividing a people who has been known for solidarity unity, is a mistake that will be disastrous, and the public are not falling for it.
"...they have absolutely no prospect of success.
Instead, Abu Mazen will fail to solidify his position as President of the Palestinian Authority; the American program to support him will fail; there will be no international conference; and, within the next sixty to ninety days — and almost certainly by the end of the year — Abu Mazen and his colleagues will either be forced into exile or will take steps to reconstitute the national unity government that they have spent the last 60 days destroying."
The message is rather elementary: Hamas won an election and has the support of the majority in both Gaza and the West Bank (the elections were there too), despite what the latest polling results show. Ignoring them and hoping that Palestinians will hold Hamas accountable, and not the outside forces who are attempting to control Palestinian affairs by dividing a people who has been known for solidarity unity, is a mistake that will be disastrous, and the public are not falling for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)