Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Two-State Solution Too Far Away

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was more explicit than usual last Sunday, asserting that Israel's settlement activity in the occupied West Bank was illegal and...

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was more explicit than usual last Sunday, asserting that Israel's settlement activity in the occupied West Bank was illegal and hurting efforts for a Mideast peace deal.

During her near-monthly visits to Israel to push forward the Annapolis process, Rice has weathered continued setbacks, and there is now a growing realization among all sides that a U.S.-brokered agreement will not be reached before President George W. Bush's term expires in January 2009.

The question now is what to do next, and how to contain the damage.

While the crisis in Gaza and violence along its border with Israel continue to dominate headlines, it is the changing facts on the ground—settlement outposts in the West Bank considered illegal under Israeli and international law—that pose the greatest challenge to the comprehensive two-state deal currently being negotiated.

"[Keeping the two-state solution alive] means saying it's all about settlements, it's all about not further eroding the situation in the territories, not further allowing the creation of an infrastructure of occupation," said former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy during a panel on Capitol Hill Monday sponsored by the think tank New America Foundation.

"To the extent to which [a shelf agreement] is still part of the narrative of this administration, that is what should actually be shelved," he said, adding that Bush's vision was "not doable nor desirable" in the present political climate.

If successful, the Annapolis plan would make Israel and a "reformed" Palestinian leadership agree to a "roadmap" for peace—a "shelf agreement" outlining two separate, contiguous Israeli and Palestinians states, living side-by-side.

Failure to reach a deal would, as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned, lead to the end of a two-state solution: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses ... and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights [also for the Palestinians in the territories], then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."

Bush's roadmap for the Middle East requires Israel to freeze settlement activity in return for an end to Palestinian attacks. But since the Annapolis meeting in late 2007, 1,900 new settlements have been slated for construction, a record number for the last 10 years, according to an April report from the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now. Freedom of Palestinian movement has been curbed, and the number of checkpoints has increased from 521 to 607. During the same period of time, the number of attacks on Israel has increased by 300 percent.

"If you want to keep building settlements, you continue to build the wall," said Mustafa Bargouti, a former presidential candidate and minister in the short-lived Palestinian Unity Government, referring to Israel's security fence, a 25-foot-tall barrier that separates Israel from parts of the West Bank and is considered illegal under international law.

"But there will be no Palestinian state, that is the reality," he continued, "not a contiguous entity that could survive, but something that looks like clusters of ghettos."

"The only other map that looks like this is the map of Bantustan in South Africa during the apartheid system," he said. "They had governments in Bantustan. They even had a king."

Despite Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' strong condemnations and the threat of eroding confidence on the ground, Washington and Olmert have done little to halt the construction of settlements.

Olmert, tainted by corruption scandals, hostage to a fragile political coalition, and focused on the daily barrage of rockets from Gaza and Israeli reprisal raids, has been unable—or unwilling—to take the initiative on the Israeli side.

The settlement movement has integrated itself into the Israeli bureaucracy to the extent that the long-term impact of expansion is often ignored, or forfeited, in Israel's domestic political arena, said Levy.

"What does it matter if we add a thousand units tomorrow, we're negotiating the final borders, and we're trying to keep our political coalition together, and you know how hard it is," he said, repeating what he described as a common Israeli government explanation. Placing too much emphasis on the day-to-day problems, he said, causes the type of paralysis that is being witnessed today.

"The consequence of this, the product has been neither a peace deal nor an ability to manage the situation on the ground, and constant erosion on the two-state solution," he said.

The U.S. ability to manage the process and its unfolding consequences has also deteriorated, as the administration continues wars on fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Lebanon is Washington's sideshow and Iraq is the show-stopper, then resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was meant to be Bush's swan song.

Aaron David Miller, a former advisor to six different U.S. secretaries of state, said the Bush administration's final adventure in transformative diplomacy comes too little too late, and occurs in a "negative" atmosphere where the political realities cannot support an agreement to settle all claims.

"Neither side is prepared to pay the price for what an agreement would cost," said Miller, adding that this time, the cost of failure to U.S. interests is greater.

"The U.S is like some modern-day Gulliver, wandering around the region, tied up in knots of its own making," he said. "Clinton stumbled badly, and for eight years under Bush, we stumbled galactically," he continued. "If you cannot help to make peace in a credible way, what kind of great power are you really?"

For Levy, what he describes as the inevitable decline in U.S. hegemony is a reality. As it ebbs, so too does the hope of a two-state solution. For some continuity to exist in the handover of power from one administration to the next, some of the content from the Annapolis process should be "locked into place," and if a deal is to be struck, it should come sooner rather than later.

"As Israelis," he said, "we have fundamental interests in locking in permanent borders that are recognized by the entire region while American power is still such that it can help us achieve that."

Khody Akhavi writes for the Inter Press Service.





Citations

Khody Akhavi , “Two-State Solution Too Far Away,” Right Web, with permission from The Forward (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4924.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: IRC editors read and approve eachcomment. Comments are checked for content and to a lesser degree forspelling and grammatical errors. Comments that include vulgar language andlibelous content are rejected, as are comments that do not directlyrespond to the published IRC article.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share