Leaving the Sinking Ship

When the Jeffrey Goldbergs of this world are openly questioning whether Israel will remain a democracy, then you know the game is up. The piece is "What if Israel ceases to be a Democracy". Of course it is naive and zionist. The assumption that Israel is a democracy today, when Israeli Arabs are second class citizens and the PA is a virtual bantustan, is deeply insulting. Yet he is at least asking the question, which would have been unthinkable two years ago.

Every complacent Israeli right winger should be required to read this article and carefully consider where exactly Bibi's strategy of seeing off Obama is leading them. The interesting point is that Goldberg raises the near-taboo topic of Israel's changing demographic mix :

I'm speaking here of four groups, each ascendant to varying degrees: The
haredim, the ultra-Orthodox Jews, whose community continues to grow at a rapid clip; the working-class religious Sephardim .h.. whose interests are represented in the Knesset by the obscurantist rabbis of the Shas Party; the settler movement, which still seems to get whatever it needs in order to grow; and the million or so recent immigrants from Russia, who support, in distressing numbers, the Putin-like Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister and leader of the "Israel is Our Home" party.

How long is it going to take for the US to realise they're dealing with a bunch of proto-fascist Russians and obsucrantist medievalists. Right now the Russians plus Haredim are almost 40% of Israel's Jewish population. Yet the IDF spokesman is always a nice, American accented white guy....

The interaction of ideology and demographics may be the tipping point in this debate. Goldberg realises that Lieberman is not a flash in the pan - he is a manifestation of long term structural changes. As Bill Clinton said "It's a different Israel today".

2011 - Year of Decision

So how will it all end? Is 2011 the year of decision?

Andrew Sullivan seems to think so. Apparantly the last two years of mind numbing inertia is another one of Barack Hussein Muhammad Ali Obama's rope-a-dope sessions, as he lures yet another self regarding opponent into the big over-reach :

What Obama has done is get Netanyahu unwittingly to make the global argument that a peace settlement cannot be won with Israel's support and cooperation - but can only be imposed somehow from outside.

It is an interesting perspective. Obama has allowed himself to be humiliated so as to demonstrate the futility of the current course. Personally I feel Sullivan places too much faith in Obama's powers of foresight - it looks more to me like an under-prepared administration groping towards a strategy. There is also the possibility that Obama has simply given up, and decided to focus on the economy for the next twelve months while, at the very least, parking the conflict until his second term.

But let's assume that Andrew Sullivan is right, and there is a larger game being played. This means that it must come to a head in 2011. The US and Israeli electoral timetables dictate that the next 12 months are the last opportunity for tough decisions to be made. The Iranian nuclear clock is also ticking towards a similar conclusion. So what impact does this have on Palestinian strategy? There are a few to note

• Abu Mazen's term as President has expired - elections to the PA are overdue
• Bolivia has now joined Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil in recognising Palestine on the 67 borders
• Salam Fayyad insists that Palestine is on track to declare statehood in August 2011

The US House of Representatives is of course passing resolutions equating Palestinian UDI to the four horsemen of the apocalypse - but these have no legal status. The President is sovereign when it comes to foreign policy. So what will actually happen over the next six months? Netanyahu continues to give Obama the run around. Abu Mazen continues to accumulate recognition throughout Latin America, and maybe also Asia. The PLO petitions the UN in August 2011 to recognise the '67 borders, while making it clear that a "No" vote will lead to Abu Mazen's resignation and the dismemberment of the PA.

Then everything will rest on Obama's Security Council veto. Obama turns to Bibi and says in his best Chicago voice "We can do this the hard way or the easy way..."

It will be fun to watch. Merry Christmas.

Argentina Recognises Palestine

A great day for Palestine.

The reaction of of the Israeli press and officialdom is interesting - Haaretz covers the announcement here and the Jerusalem Post here.

The headline of the Haaretz article is revealing in itself : "Israel warns Argentina: Recognizing Palestinian state shatters peace process". Sounds a bit like : "Child warns Father - premature removal of dummy risks tantrum!"

The decision was highly "damaging," foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor
said, "because they are in fact shattering the foundation of the peace
process."

This is actually true. The foundation of the current peace process is institutionalised Israeli footdragging to provide a cover for the deepening and systemisation of the occupation. Israel believes that Oslo conferred upon them a limitless exemption from international law and a legal basis for the occupation, and thus the rest of the world no longer has a right to express an opinion on the subject.

In my opinion the shattering of this sort of "process" is exactly what the middle east needs.
The Israeli foreign ministry took the cake with this statement :

“All attempts to bypass negotiations and to unilaterally determine issues
in dispute will only harm the trust of the sides and their commitment to agreed upon frameworks for negotiations,”

Except for unilaterally building the wall, doubling the size of settlements, ethnically cleansing Sheikh Jarrah, etc - apparantly those actions don't threaten anything.

But apart from giving us the opportunity to enjoy another dose of Israeli Kafka-esque irony, there are some broader implications :

• Was the US have forewarned of the move? Is this actually a US warning shot across Bibi's bows?;
• Could Obama be preparing to ditch the whole illusion of a process, and deal directly with the final status issues via the UN security council?; and most importantly
• Could Abu Mazen be finally waking up to the power of saying no?

Let's look at the worst case scenario for Abbas - there is no US pressure on Israel and no moves forward in the peace process. Abbas then continues his trips around the world gathering more and more recognition of the 67 borders. Towards the end of 2011 he petitions the Security Council with something approaching an international consensus.

The US would veto it of course, but only after extracting huge concessions from Israel - "you are one abstention away from international pariah status".

Two State Solution Death Watch part 367

It seems we are approaching a tipping point. The One State Solution has, this year, made a serious breakthrough to mainstream political discourse.

Until recently support for a OSS has been seen as a fringe activity, even within Palestinian circles. It was seen as an empty negotiating threat, or a code word used by rejectionists - either way it was easily dismissed.

But then Ali Abuminah crystallized the idea with his seminal work "One Country - A Bold Proposal to end the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". It was telling that the book emerged from the diaspora - immune to the lure of VIP passes and favourable treatment that are bestowed on the Ramallah Oslo industry.

Concrete foundations were laid by a large two day conference held in May 2008 at SOAS, London. I attended this gathering and was struck by two things :
1) the broad swathe of Palestinian political thought that was represented, and
2) the seriousness of the discussion, and detailed proposals

It was clear that this was not empty chatter from the "usual suspects" or river-to-the-sea dreamers, but a series of deadly serious proposals from influential people. This is reflected in the Palestinian Strategy Group. What's telling is the list of contributors - you couldn't find a more mainstream, well connected group of Palestinians.

What has surprised me is how quickly the One State Solution has broken out.
Olmert certainly de-stigmatised the discussion, by pointing out the obvious :

"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,"

But the breakout is surely the 60 minutes report of January 2009, openly questioning the continued viability of the two state concept. An avalanche has been unleashed.

The Daily Kos devoted a page to the discussion. It's worth quoting :

Bob Simon's tone and approach to discussing the issue struck me as dour and depressing. Simon very matter-of-factly presented the case that history has passed by the two state solution mainly because of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Note the past tense, and the fact that the blame is placed squarely on the settlements.

Andrew Sullivan picked up the topic.

And on Feb 10 2009 Stephen Walt, of Walt/Mearsheimer fame, asked the question "What do we do if a Two State Solution Collapses" :

There are two trends at play that threaten to undermine the two-state option. The first is the continued expansion of Israel settlements in the land that is supposed to be reserved for the Palestinians.

Again - the settlements are prime culprit. The key point is here :

Which brings me to the third option. The Israeli government could maintain its physical control over "greater Israel" and grant the Palestinians full democratic rights within this territory. This option has been proposed by a handful of Israeli Jews and a growing number of Palestinians....if a two-state option is no longer feasible, it seems likely that the United States would come to favor this third choice.

This is no longer a taboo - in fact in his opinion the US would come to support it. The sky has yet to fall on his head.

And the Middle East Policy Council has held an entire forum on the topic.

Here is an interesting blog reaction, by Matt Eckel :

Foreign Policy Watch: If the Two State Solution Collapses...

I have a hunch that the Bush Administration's serial indulgence of Israel's worst instincts has seeded the ground for a more balanced and serious discussion of American regional interests. Absent some noticeable changes in Israeli policy, I don't see that discussion turning out well for Tel Aviv....It has always struck me that elite consensus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to come ten years too late.

A very good point. The Bush administration reminded me of a delinquent parent, cutting too much slack to a problem teenager and refusing to see the upcoming trainwreck. And it is ironic that everyone supports a two state solution now that it is practicably unobtainable - where were you in 1988?

But I fundamentally disagree with this part :

On a practical level, as Walt notes, consociational multi-ethnic states have a terrible track record, particularly those that emerge from serious inter-ethnic conflict. I've also argued that the notion of a "bi-national state" is something of a misnomer, as it implies a level of social cohesion between national groups that almost certainly wouldn't exist in the Levant.

Canada, Belgium and democratic South Africa emerged from inter-ethnic conflict, as did, arguably, the United Kingdom. People forget that for centuries Scotland was England's Gaza, closely allied to their greatest enemy - France.

The other point, and this is often missed American Jews who've never visited, is the extent to which the tribes are already intermingled.

Israel's citizenship today is only 76% Jewish - not counting East Jerusalem. Every street sign is in two languages - Arabic and Hebrew. Most Palestinians speak Hebrew, and Israelis learn Arabic as part of their military service. In fact the languages are so similar they're merging - there is a Hebrew / Arabic mishmash street lingo that has become fashionable among young people. It's a completely different situation from Xhosa and Afrikaans.

And the majority of Israelis are (whisper it quietly...) Mizrahi. That means their ancestors have lived in Arab countries for a thousand years, and if you go back 2 generations Arabic was their first language. They eat the same food, listen to the same music and watch the same TV. These people are so similar to Levant Arabs in terms of looks, culture and temperament that it makes the two state solution patently absurd. The only obstacle is the 1930's Central European ethnically based nationalism that the Azkenazi elite has imposed on them.

I advise Americans not to worry so much - a One State solution will work just fine. It won't be Greenwich Village-sur-med but then, neither is the status quo...