Divide and Rule

Martin Indyk, Bill Clinton's ambassador to Israel, has a plan for Palestine. Roughly speaking, let Hamas run Gaza and then deal with Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank "where he can depend on the Israel Defense Forces to suppress challenges from Hamas, and on Jordan and the United States to help rebuild his security forces." Abbas will gain control over the West Bank and then "could make a peace deal with Israel that establishes a Palestinian state with provisional borders in the West Bank and the Arab suburbs of East Jerusalem."

Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza could compare their fate under Hamas's rule with the fate of their West Bank cousins under Abbas -- which might then force Hamas to come to terms with Israel, making it eventually possible to reunite Gaza and the West Bank as one political entity living in peace with the Jewish state. It's hard to believe that such a benign outcome could emerge from the growing Palestinian civil war. But given current events, this course is likely to become Abbas's best option.

Daniel Levy raises a very of objections. I would just note that, in broad outline, what Indyk is doing here is continuing the decades-long search for a quisling regime in Palestine. Indyk sees Abbas as weak enough to require Israeli support to maintain control over the West Bank, but strong enough to be able to maintain such control if he gets the Israeli support. Thus, Abbas -- if he's rational and cynical -- should be interested in cutting a deal with Israel on whatever terms secure him that Israeli support.

The reference to Palestinian borders in "the Arab suburbs of East Jerusalem" means that to obtain this Israeli support, Abbas must agree to cede the entirety of Jerusalem proper to Israel, as well as agree to let Israel keep the large settlement blocks (these would be the non-Arab suburbs) near Jerusalem. Since the IDF will be helping Abbas maintain control in the West Bank, this presumably means Israel gets shared access to West Bank airspace for military purposes and the ability to maintain some kind of military facilities there.

This kind of deal, however, is precisely what no substantial force in Palestine has ever been willing to accept. Some Palestinians demand the elimination of Israel or its de facto elimination through a strong "right of return." Others have been willing to accept a genuinely independent Palestinian state based more-or-less precisely on Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. There's just never been a Palestinian constituency -- not just no majority constituency but no constituency whatsoever -- for what Indyk is proposing, essentially a Palestinian state on those parts of the West Bank that are of no practical value to Israel and that's in some sense a dependency of Israel in security terms.

In principle, obviously, Indyk's solution could work, but I doubt it. The Palestinians have shown nothing over the years if not a great willingness to reject short-term amelioration of living conditions on behalf of larger political principles. It seems to me that a Palestinian leader who accepted a deal on these terms would be discredited and would need to rule the West Bank purely as a creature of the Israeli government and would find himself in constant conflict with the local population.

Comments

Martin Indyk, Bill Clinton's ambassador to Israel, has a plan for Palestine.

Regrettably, the situation is becoming not what plan the United States may have for the Palestinians but rather what plan the Palestinians may have for the United States.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | June 16, 2007 11:14 AM

"I would just note that, in broad outline, what Indyk is doing here is continuing the decades-long search for a quisling regime in Palestine."

I mentioned this before, but seriously, I find Israel's post-Oslo strategic plan to surround itself with Afghanistans to be utterly fascinating.

Mission accomplished to the North and South. Now all they have to do is continue with this type of stuff to the West to complete the map.

Posted by Petey | June 16, 2007 11:17 AM

the Arab suburbs of East Jerusalem

He probably means the Arab neighborhoods outside the old city.

Posted by David | June 16, 2007 11:48 AM

The recent string of disasters lends some perspective on the career of the late Mr. Arafat-- He wasn't an attractive character, but things that were politically possible when he was alive are now just pipe dreams.

Posted by MattF | June 16, 2007 11:49 AM

"The recent string of disasters lends some perspective on the career of the late Mr. Arafat-- He wasn't an attractive character, but things that were politically possible when he was alive are now just pipe dreams."

I think Fatah made a huge mistake in going with Abbas rather than Marwan Barghouti after Arafat died.

Posted by Petey | June 16, 2007 11:54 AM

". . . Israel's post-Oslo strategic plan to surround itself with Afghanistans . . ."

I think that's a tough case to make, Petey, if only because post-Oslo Israel has had some pretty big swings in political leadership. It's hard to believe that both Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon were both implementing the same strategic plan. It seems more plausible to me that the strategic calculations of Israel's enemies have remained fairly constant post-Oslo, and their strategy has generally prevailed--to the grave injury of the Palestinians. But I suppose that's less fascinating.

Posted by southpaw | June 16, 2007 11:55 AM

"It's hard to believe that both Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon were both implementing the same strategic plan."

Why is that hard to believe? When Sharon was defence minister Barak was his favorite general. Do you really believe you can see a difference between Likud and Avoda policies in the occupied territories, or their Lebanon strategy?

Posted by David | June 16, 2007 12:09 PM

Good point, Southpaw. I've always found it strange that the only time anyone considers Palestinian and/or Arab strategy and political pressures, it is to invoke the "Arab street". The Israeli "street" is dismissed as irrelevant, or, at best, something easily manipulated. Similarly, the current mess is interpreted solely as the result of Israeli or American strategic failures. Arab miscalculations? Palestinian failures? It seems they are never the agents of their own misfortune. They're just political children: how can they be responsible?

My departmental colleague is Palestinian and yesterday he spoke by phone to some family remaining in Gaza. They are safe but utterly devastated by what has happened. When Israel withdrew and foreign governments promised aid, they thought things were finally going to improve. Then Hamas won the elections. Now they only want to get out.

"Less fascinating", indeed.

Posted by Jenkins | June 16, 2007 12:18 PM

David -- Sharon (Likud) was the architect of the '82 Lebanon invastion; Barak (Labor) was the architect of '00 Lebanon withdrawl. That's a difference, no?

Posted by ASR | June 16, 2007 12:18 PM

Man, Daniel Levy's column is another one of these columns that offers basically no new ideas, and just tells all sides to "work harder" and "find a partner for peace". Sorry, but the Green Lantern approach doesn't work any better for Mideast peace than it does for Iraq "victory."

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 16, 2007 12:19 PM

I think Fatah made a huge mistake in going with Abbas rather than Marwan Barghouti after Arafat died.

Wasn't Marwan Barghouti in an Israeli jail? Doesn't that kind of make it hard to elect him President?

Posted by mattsteinglass | June 16, 2007 12:34 PM

I think Fatah made a huge mistake in going with Abbas rather than Marwan Barghouti after Arafat died

Right, but unfortunately Barghouti's been in custody since 2002, and received multiple life sentences in 04.

I think it's rather clear that Israel made a huge mistake in removing Barghouti from the scene, though it is entirely consistent with Israel's pattern of arresting/assassinating moderates, and then pointing to the subsequent violent outrage as proof that there is no partner for peace.

Posted by M. Duss | June 16, 2007 12:40 PM

"continuing the decades-long search for a quisling regime in Palestine"

Once more we can all look forward to:
1. In the short term, a devastating 'refutation' from the Spine.
2. In the long term, Alan Dershowitz's review of your book in TNR.

Posted by otto | June 16, 2007 12:43 PM

"Similarly, the current mess is interpreted solely as the result of Israeli or American strategic failures. Arab miscalculations? Palestinian failures? It seems they are never the agents of their own misfortune. They're just political children: how can they be responsible?"

While the Palestinian leaders have been responsible for their own actions, the context within which the Palestinians operate is under a series of layers. First there is the context that is defined by Israeli policies and occupation and only under that is the context that the Palestinians themselves create. Nobody has ever been able to create a proto-system that is demanded of the Palestinians - democratic, liberal, secular, non-violent, pluralistic - under occupation (people say that the Palestinians would be successful if they acted like Gandhi, but the biggest factor leading to Indian independence was the British financial debt to India caused by spending money to fight WWII. The country also broke along religious lines). Any plan we or the Israelis put forward that we could not accept Israel accepting for itself is doomed to failure. Israelis would not accept anything less than full independence, so why should the Palestinians?

Posted by Reality Man | June 16, 2007 12:57 PM

"I think it's rather clear that Israel made a huge mistake in removing Barghouti from the scene..."

Barghouti has remained politically active from prison, where Israel has let him and other Palestinians work on their grand political ideas. He's also a lot safer in an Israeli prison than he would be in the middle of a Palestinian civil war. Israel could always release him when the dust settles, should Israel think that his potential as a leader for peace trumps his murder convictions.

Posted by Fred | June 16, 2007 1:03 PM

"Wasn't Marwan Barghouti in an Israeli jail?"

Yup.

"Doesn't that kind of make it hard to elect him President?"

Nope. Not in the least.

He was running for President until the Abbas faction managed to leverage enough pressure on him (including US pressure) to get him to drop out.

Barghouti was the one guy who could've given Fatah enough legitimacy to hold back Hamas. He's also the one guy with enough legitimacy to have signed off on a meaningful deal with Israel.

Posted by Petey | June 16, 2007 1:07 PM

"I think it's rather clear that Israel made a huge mistake in removing Barghouti from the scene, though it is entirely consistent with Israel's pattern of arresting/assassinating moderates, and then pointing to the subsequent violent outrage as proof that there is no partner for peace."

Yup. It's a mistake if you're sane. But it's sheer genius if you're a Greater Israel maximist.

This is why I mentioned above that I thought Israel's strategic plan of surrounding itself with Afghanistans is utterly fascinating. It has a demented kind of logic to it, even if I don't think it's ultimately a wise bet for Israel.

As MJ Rosenberg wrote about the current situation in Gaza:

As for the Israeli and Jewish right, these are good times. Palestinians are killing each other. There is "no partner" for negotiations. And, if lunatics own Gaza, they will never have to worry about negotiations.

Posted by Petey | June 16, 2007 1:13 PM

Israel could always release [Barghouti] when the dust settles, should Israel think that his potential as a leader for peace trumps his murder convictions.

Israel could have done this when it might have made a difference, but chose not to. At this point, even recognizing the legitimacy that Barghouti still enjoys, it's hard to imagine him mounting a credible challenge to Hamas, especially since they'd be able to spin his release as yet another Israel/US attempt to undercut them.

Posted by M. Duss | June 16, 2007 1:21 PM

Just a quick response to Reality Man. The country was artificially broken (combination of British strategies to "divide and rule" and a combination of Jinnah's ambition to have his own state); it did not, however, of its own accord "break along religious lines." That the latter is true is recognized by the fact that Southern India (home to a significant number of Christians and Catholics) did not secede. However, maybe you have a more interesting point that using the strategies of divide and rule is not a good one?

Posted by anemic coward | June 16, 2007 1:34 PM

Israelis would not accept anything less than full independence, so why should the Palestinians?

Israel opted for "independence" -- half a loaf -- back in 1947. The Arabs first, then the Palestinians, expected a full loaf and to eat it, too. Israel's basic goals have always been 1. peace, and 2. security (some semblance of which they got from Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994). As Barak showed at Sharm El Sheikh in October 2000, given some hope of acquiring the first, the Israelis will go a fair way on compromising the second. It may be argued that various Israeli governments have squandered genuine opportunities (e.g. most recently they could have handed Abbas a "victory" in their withdrawal from Gaza; instead it was quickly claimed by Hamas), but to attribute failure only to Israel's agency, or even to the U.S., is just to play a silly game.

Posted by Jenkins | June 16, 2007 1:36 PM

Just to echo anemic coward, the British contributed significantly to the breakup of India, particularly through their choice of political partners and the way they staged votes. In fact, the British have a special talent for partitioning their colonies and creating intractable conflicts.

Another factor was the necessity of Shiites to come together with Sunnis against the Hindus - Jinnah was born Ismaili and became Shiite. There is no equivalent dynamic in Palestine.

Gandhi was unusual - one can't expect Gandhis to be popping up all over. There are nonviolent political actors in Palestine; they are just marginalized. Mustafa Barghouti (not Marwan) is probably the best-known example, he got under 20% of the vote in the Palestinian presidential election. Palestinian society does not yet seem to support solely nonviolent resistance, though that of course could change.

Posted by Hektor Bim | June 16, 2007 1:58 PM

Re Barghouti

I am getting a big laugh out of this infatuation with Marwan Barghouti. This gentleman is a Mossad agent who is being groomed by them to eventually take over as president of the PA. Anybody who looks at the conditions of his incarceration cannot fail to conclude that he is not being held in jail as a murdering criminal but is being held in protective custody. He will be released as a part of a so-called prisoner exchange which will include Pollard when the time is ripe. The Palestinians will accept him as a great hero who stood up to the Zionist imperialist warmongers (their view).

Posted by SLC | June 16, 2007 2:10 PM

David -- Sharon (Likud) was the architect of the '82 Lebanon invastion; Barak (Labor) was the architect of '00 Lebanon withdrawl. That's a difference, no?

Only a difference in circumstances. In 1982, general Barak was head of IDF planning and deputy commander of the invading forces. In 2000, he realized there were no benefits in fighting an endless counter-insurgency against Hezbollah.

Posted by David | June 16, 2007 2:28 PM

Indyk is talking about a Palestinian state with "provisional" borders, not final borders. The arrangement he mentions is undoubtedly not the final state of things that he envisions for the end of the process, as I just mentioned in a post over at our blog. Nevertheless, the "provisional borders" idea will still most likely run into the problem of being denounced by Palestinians as a sell-out, as I also discuss in that post.

Posted by Haggai | June 16, 2007 2:47 PM

anemic coward, ummm, duh. My family on my mom's side is from both northern and southern India and includes Hindus, Muslims, Christians and atheists, so this has been an important issue for us, so I don't need to be told that. I was just using the Indian experience as an aside relating to what I've heard as a common argument against the Palestinians.

"That the latter is true is recognized by the fact that Southern India (home to a significant number of Christians and Catholics) did not secede."

A significant number does not equal a majority. Goa, where there are a majority of Catholics, was under Portuguese rule until the 1960's, when Nehru marched in. This isn't exactly relevant. A better example to prove your point would be the recent theory that Jinnah did not actually wish to create a separate Muslim state, but instead was using it as a gambit to force the Congress Party and the Hindu majority into greater concessions to and protections for Indian Muslims. Nehru called his bluff and the British changed the handover date due to the failing British economy, so those talks were never finished and we're still dealing with the mess.

(Oh, for those people who use this as an argument against ever leaving Iraq or having a timetable, cut that shit out. Just about everyone wanted the British to leave India. The problem is the British didn't stick to their own timetable. Indians were actually in talks about how to run the country without the British that were making progress, which we are not seeing in Iraq, where the parliament have decided the summer of the surge is a great time to go on vacation instead.)

Posted by Reality Man | June 16, 2007 5:06 PM

"Israel opted for "independence" -- half a loaf -- back in 1947. The Arabs first, then the Palestinians, expected a full loaf and to eat it, too."

Israel got full independence. You're just talking yourself in circles here.

"Israel's basic goals have always been 1. peace, and 2. security (some semblance of which they got from Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994)."

Just because you say that's someone's goal doesn't mean they know how to go about it intelligently. If Israel's primary goal was peace, people like Sharon and Begin would never have been elected. No country that creates an imperialist system and/or manifests its Biblical pipe creams on others (Greater Israel) is interested primarily in peace. This is not unique to Israel. States are complicated institutions made up of many people with different agendas, especially in a democracy. States are not that simple. The delusion of Greater Israel has compromised Israeli security for decades.

"As Barak showed at Sharm El Sheikh in October 2000, given some hope of acquiring the first, the Israelis will go a fair way on compromising the second."

If George Washington accepted such an offer as what what offered at Oslo, we would remember him as a traitor. (On a side note, we in this country also forget that during our own Revolution, Tory loyalists in the colonies we oppressed, even targeted and murdered. When we won our independence, a number of Tories had to flee for their lives to Britain.) Getting out of the Palestinian territories would make Israel safer. This is why the majority of Israelis are against the occupation.

"It may be argued that various Israeli governments have squandered genuine opportunities (e.g. most recently they could have handed Abbas a "victory" in their withdrawal from Gaza; instead it was quickly claimed by Hamas), but to attribute failure only to Israel's agency, or even to the U.S., is just to play a silly game."

I explicitly said that the Palestinian leaders are responsible for their own actions. You are intentionally mis-representing what I said to be dishonest. It is dishonest to absolve a colonial power of any real responsibility or say it is only interested in peace.

Posted by Reality Man | June 16, 2007 5:24 PM

Incidentally, I discovered in the course of research that Wikipedia makes it very hard to construct a post-WWII narrative about the Palestinians. Events like the late 60s airplane hijackings, Black September in Jordan, the Munich Massacre, the Palestinian contribution to the Lebanese Civil War, the Palestinian support & assistance given to Saddam's rape of Kuwait etc are under the histories of the separate nations with no interconnecting links. Interesting.

Of course, all these events, like the most recent in Gaza, occurred because the Israelis are meanies. I mean, all dispossessed mistreated cultures or nations have become violent and disruptive in their places of exile. The Israelis understand.

Posted by bob mcmanus | June 16, 2007 6:44 PM

I mean, all dispossessed mistreated cultures or nations have become violent and disruptive in their places of exile. The Israelis understand.

I agree, those with long memories remember the violent agitation leading up to the creation of modern Israel. When Zionist terrorists attacked the King David Hotel...

Oh, wait, you were trying to be sarcastic. Well, when "places of exile" becomes exactly equivalent to "native land," you'll have an excellent point. Until that day magically arrives, fuck you, bob.

Posted by mds | June 17, 2007 10:49 AM