Two states or else
In the last week, Israel has cratered Gaza with dozens of airstrikes. Hamas has fired hundreds of rockets into southern Israel. Following on the murders of four teenagers, Palestine could be on the cusp of a third intifada. At the Wilson Center Monday, moderator David Aaron Miller joined panelists Hussein Ibish, Shibley Telhami, and Robert Danin to discuss recent events.
Telhami noted a number of parallels between 1987, the eve of the First Intifada, and today. In the 1980s, the Iran-Iraq war dominated the headlines, and Israel-Palestine had ceased to command much attention. With the world focused on Syria and Iraq, this is also the case today. He also pointed to the weakness of Palestine’s leaders. In 1987, much of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leadership was living in exile. At present, they might as well be. Unable, or unwilling, to administer much of Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is wholly disconnected from the people who elected them.
The political landscape in Palestine is marred by inaction and despair, said Danin. Hamas and the PA are reacting to, rather than leading, events. With the last election more than five years ago, both lack political legitimacy. Indeed, the increasing irrelevance of the two factions was crucial to the formation of the Hamas-PA unity government.
PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has been branded a traitor for cooperating with Israelis to apprehend the men who kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers. Meanwhile, 50,000 government workers have not been paid in the last month. Hamas is also in a difficult position, as they need to reign in militants while not appearing to placate Israel.
The panelists agreed that Hamas’s leadership is not inclined to intensify the conflict. Some Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, are equally reluctant to escalate. Israel looks to Hamas to enforce order in Gaza, and is concerned with the rise of more radical movements like Islamic Jihad. Hamas is willing to play this role, but needs a political out.
The good news, said Ibish, is that if a majority of Palestinians wanted an intifada, there would be one. On the Israeli side, many are aware that if a two-state solution doesn’t happen now, it may never happen. In a political climate that has Netanyahu looking like a moderate, however, a return to negotiating table appears unlikely. Still, both sides are terrified of the rising chaos in the region. With one eye towards Syria and Iraq, they are aware that things could be much worse.
Danin noted that the current bout of violence didn’t come out of nowhere, and is not simply a product of a failed peace process. There has been an uptick in so-called “Price Tag” attacks in last few years. John Kerry is not to blame for this. Still, there is a diplomatic vacuum right now, and the US doesn’t have a strong hand to play.
If it is too late for a two-state solution, Telhami said, then one state, with equal citizenship, is the only morally acceptable alternative. This scenario is unlikely, however. In fact, Kiryat Arba and other settler groups have already taken advantage of the chaos to establish new outposts in the West Bank. Danin countered that a one-state “solution” does not exist. Ultimately, there is no smorgasbord of outcomes. The possibilities are binary: a two-state solution, or unremitting bloodshed.
Since 1967, Israelis have wielded the power of the strong, while Palestinians have wielded the power of the weak. It is within this context that children become targets, and diplomacy gives way to blood debt. There is only one way out of this cycle of violence, and that is through a two-state solution.
If the peace process can be revived, Netanyahu might yet have a role to play. After all, the history of peacemaking is a history of transformed hawks.
RSS - Posts
