The Third Way

Thomas Friedman writes about the Israel-Palestine conflict: "The third way, unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza, has been discredited by Hezbollah’s attack from Lebanon and the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza." This is, factually speaking, true. Unilateralism was very popular in Israel and among pro-Israel activists in the diaspora and then rapidly became unpopular when Hamas and Hezbollah continued to fire rockets across the unilaterally established borders.

What I've always wondered about this was why this process happened in public opinion? I had thought that the point of unilateralism was that Israelis reached the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that there was nothing they could agree to that would stop the occasional terrorist attack so that Israel might as well unilaterally withdraw to borders that were practically and morally easier to defend. Agree with that or not, it seems logical enough and it's not a proposition whose logic is undermined by the fact that some rocket attacks happened.

It seems, though, that what made unilateralism popular was that a large number of people thought that if the Palestinians were unilaterally given substantially less than they'd rejected at Camp David that they would spontaneously -- decide to take that new, less favorable non-negotiated offer with such a degree of unanimity that no cross-border rocket attacks owuld ever happen. And, well, of course that theory got discredit -- it was always really dumb.

Comments

Israel withdrew from every inch of Lebanese soil, and was still continually attacked across the border.

If that doesn't prove the intransigence of Israel's enemies, nothing does.

Posted by David | June 6, 2007 2:35 PM

My impression is that the "Rockets" coming into Israel from Gaza are little more than the rockets one can buy from Estes. That if one happened to fall on you, you could be hurt but that they carry too light a payload to be dangerous if they land more than 10 yards away.

There are two things which are puzzling: (a) why Hamas fires the rockets, given that they are more of an embarrassing display of weakness than a threat to Israel (b) why the US news media does not discuss the above.

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 2:39 PM

My impression is that the "Rockets" coming into Israel from Gaza are little more than the rockets one can buy from Estes...

Well, yes, they're Estes rockets, true, but they are Skill Level 4s and 5s. I believe a "Mars Snooper" came very close to landing on an Israeli settlement last week.

Posted by James Gary | June 6, 2007 2:45 PM

Matt,

What third way proponents hoped was that by withdrawing from Gaza (Lebanon is a different story), the Palestinians would take the opportunity to exercise control over their territory and demonstrate that they would run a reasonable efficient state that had a monopoly on force. Such a Palestinian state would have the ability to make a meaningful call to change American public opinion on the relative moral position of Israel and the Palestinians.

In other words, the thought was that the Palestinians would understand that if they run Gaza without large-scale corruption and without attacking Israel, they would get the West Bank because they would innoculate American opinion against the argument that Israel cannot withdraw from the West Bank because it would have indefensible borders against an implacable enemy.

You may think that this thought was naive. You may quote Abba Eban "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

But, there was a logic.

Posted by Ephus | June 6, 2007 2:45 PM

The reason that no one dares suggest that this doesn't work is that no one would dare criticize the Israeli government's action in this country until the actions themselves have been abandoned by their founders.

In Haaretz, you get a much more vibrant discussion of unilateralism than you will ever find in the NY Times. Friedman himself will always cheer on whatever Israel does, and then when the vast majority of Israeli leaders and opinion-makers have turned on this issue, he regales us with his opposition to it. Where was this 2 years ago?

If Israelis tomorrow elected Ehud Barak on a platform of unleashing lions to eat Palestinians in their cages, every media talking head in America from Marty Peretz to Tom Friedman will be fawning over the intelligence of such a move. Only when this completely fails and the Palestinians kill all the lions, causing a danger of mass extinction of lions worldwide would Friedman criticize it, and in the process, he would blame the Palestinians for the threat of extinction and their carelessness towards biodiversity. And Marty Peretz would inform us that this is all, of course, an integral trait of Arab culture which is always cruel to animals and women. And that Arabs have no dress sense.

Discussing Israel in this country is like discussing American politics in North Korea.

Posted by Saifedean | June 6, 2007 2:46 PM

Ephus: "the Palestinians would take the opportunity to exercise control over their territory and demonstrate that they would run a reasonable efficient state that had a monopoly on force."

And you call this logic? What kind of 'monopoly of power' can be demonstrated when Israel literally turned all of Gaza into one big cage whose entrances it controls, whether by land, sea or air? And when Israel has bombed almost every day and invaded on several occasions? Need I remind you, according to international law, Gaza is still occupied territory.

The fact that you think that giving control of an open-air prison to Palestinians leaves the onus on them is exactly what is wrong with this line of reasoning.

Posted by saifedean | June 6, 2007 2:51 PM

Discussing Israel in this country is like discussing American politics in North Korea.

What? Because Israel is...constantly demonized by the ruling regime in the US as the implacable enemy? I'm completely lost now.

Posted by James Gary | June 6, 2007 2:53 PM

Even if there are rocket attacks from Gaza, it still made sense to withdraw from there. It's cheaper (in lives as well as men) to respond to rocket attacks with helicopter strikes and brief raids than it is to defend settlements in Gaza with troops stationed on the ground.

In any case, it's long since time for Israel to present a technological solution to these rockets. The radar-guidance infrastructure they have developed for the Arrow "hitting a bullet with a bullet" system could be modified to be effective against these sorts of rockets. Instead of using "bullet" interceptor missiles, they could use automated cannons firing large bursts of shotgun pellets, or rounds that explode in the air along the rockets' trajectories. When parts of deflected Hamas rockets start falling back on Gaza, perhaps Gazans will rethink their support for rocket barrages.

Posted by Fred | June 6, 2007 3:02 PM

James Gary:

No, because it is constantly hailed by the ruling powers, the media and the intellectuals as the infallible paragon of virtue and morality in the world.

The maturity of the debate here is on a par with the maturity of the debate on America in Korea.

Posted by saifedean | June 6, 2007 3:02 PM

You don't understand Matt - everything that the Palestinians do justifies their subjection and colonisation one way or another, whether its resistance or non-resistance. Offering them little is a way of discrediting offering them more. That's zionism.

Posted by otto | June 6, 2007 3:07 PM

I think a majority of Israelis trusted Sharon to protect them and trusted his opinion that strategic withdrawal was necessary for Israel's defense. But they don't trust Olmert to protect them, whether they give up more territory or not.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 6, 2007 3:08 PM

I think what Saifedean means to say is that the parameters of what is acceptable to say about Israel and specifically Israeli behavior in mainstream American discourse are fairly tightly controlled, as would be the case in N. Korea vis-a-vis the U.S. The analogy definitely has flaws, but I think the broader point holds. Nice feigned ignorance as to the gist of what was being said there, though.

Posted by Warren | June 6, 2007 3:14 PM

The idea that the Palestinian Authority could not exercise a monopoly on the use of force within Gaza because Israel did not relinquish border control is an absolute non-sequitor.

One could argue that the Palestinian Authority chose to allow rocket attacks to continue because they believed it to be useful pressure against Israel (which would be, IMO, deluded).

One could also argue that the Palestinian Authority did not exercise a monopoly on the use of force within Gaza because it could not spend its political capital by disarming (i.e. fighting) Hamas in support of the current arrangement (which would be, IMO, a pragmatic choice that has the effect of locking the current arrangement in place for the foreseeable future).

One could argue that the Palestinian Authority did not exercise a monopoly on the use of force within Gaza because it was too weak and corrupt to actually accomplish anything (which would be, IMO, accurate but unfortunate, as it would show that Israel did not have a meaningful negotiating partner).

One could even argue that the Palestinian Authority did not exercise a monoploy on the use of force with Gaza because it made the strategic decision that pushing the Israeli electorate towards the return of Netanyahu would further Palestinian goals because Netanyahu would re-impose IDF troops in Gaza and turn off the American public.

But to argue that the Palestinian Authority did not have the ability (as oppoosed to the desire) to impose a monopoly on the use of force because of border control is just changing the subject.

Remember, the question posed here was why did Israelis and pro-Israeli Americans believe that unilateral withdrawal would lead to a temporary cease-fire. The answer was that Israelis and pro-Israeli Americans thought that the PA would have the foresight to recognize that it could achieve the goal of establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank if it stopped the rockets for an extended period of time (just as "Paris is worth a mass", Ramallah is worth a ceasefire). The refusal of the PA to impose a monopoly on the use of force leads to me to the conclusion that the PA has higher priorities than ending the occupation of the West Bank.

Posted by Ephus | June 6, 2007 3:36 PM

Maybe if Iran gets a nuke and uses it on Israel, the Palestinians can get the status quo circa 1880: less than 100k living between the Jordan and the Med, Palestine mostly a desolate wasteland with weeds sprouting between the stones in front of the Dome of the Rock, etc.

Posted by Fred | June 6, 2007 3:45 PM

Ephus,

Unfortunately, all of the points you made are completely nonsensical. There is no point in debunking them one by one, because they make absolutely no sense.

The bottom line is that Gaza is still occupied territory according to international law, Israel controls everything: all sea exits, air travel and terrestrial borders. Even a primitive understanding of political science 101 will convince you there is no way you can exercise a monopoly of power under occupation. The population is starving, the government has no money and no bullets and can simply not do anything. Perhaps most pertinently, there is no scope for setting the scheme of rewards and punishments to impose legitimacy of force, which is what is needed, because rewards and punishment are administered by Israel.

I understand that in your world Israel can obviously not do anything wrong. But that's your problem that you refuse to engage your brain.

Posted by saifedean | June 6, 2007 4:15 PM

Unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon was because it was draining Israeli lives. The subsequent Katyusha firing Hizbullah uses to keep the donor funds rolling may not have been foreseen, but the fact Barak carried Kiryat Shmona and Akko in the Labor primary's first round suggests people there don't consider it a huge mistake.

In Gaza, it seems the Israeli government failed to foresee not just the complete collapse of the Palestinian Authority as personified there at the time by Muhammad Dahlan, but the complete collapse of all authority. What gets reported as Hamas/Fatah violence is actually rivalry between clans trying to be their own authority/protection in a lawless area, smuggling rings of various kinds, and random cells of militant groups no one has ever heard of. Some of this takes place under the Hamas/Fatah label.

The problem with public opinion on the Gaza withdraw is in part the perception that the West Bank could also become a staging ground against it, and partly the fact that those evacuated from Gaza have not been treated well by the state - almost two years later they still haven't received the compensation they were promised.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | June 6, 2007 4:29 PM

Gaza has a perfectly open border with Egypt.

Nice try.

Posted by David | June 6, 2007 4:38 PM

Actually, Ephus, the whole thing is really simple: If Israelis had been in the Palestinians' place, what would they have done?

David: Gaza has a closed border to the nearby Israeli towns and cities where there's work, and an open border to the Sinai desert. Try to make serious arguments, please.

Posted by Alan in SF | June 6, 2007 5:09 PM

Gaza's border with Egypt is not open - I don't know where that came from. Israel retains the authority to close it, and it is seldom open. Hotels in al-Arish are filled with Palestinians waiting to get into Gaza.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | June 6, 2007 5:22 PM

Amazing--with the Iraq War ongoing, there are still people who think that building a Weberian state is a matter of simple will as opposed to an extremely complex series of institutions that cannot simply be created out of thin air. Yeesh.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | June 6, 2007 5:31 PM

I take the position that unilateral withdrawal was simply Sharon's way of jumping ahead of public opinion.

For those (on both sides) that genuinely do seek peace the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank was not a zero sum game, but a NEGATIVE sum game. Each attack led to a heightened response ad infinitum. Of course, if you genuinely hate the idea of a two state solution and think that if you can just hold on long enough (50 years, 100, 200 years be damned) and WIN, then this is exactly what you want.

But Sharon's thinking (IMHO) had evolved and he was the only Israeli politician that could have withdrawn and refrained from heavy handed counter-attacks. He was also the only one that could have unilaterally withdrawn from the West Bank, while annexing the close in settlements. This presupposes no disastrous Lebanon war and plenty of potential problems down the road, but I think that was Sharon's strategy. Circle the wagons, retreat to a more MORALLY defensible position, and hope that an effective partner emerged to negotiate the final agreement. If not, create a status quo of two states, so that the worst possible outcome (one non-Jewish state) did not ever see the light of day. Ever since Sharon checked out, that has become more and more likely...

Posted by dan k | June 6, 2007 5:59 PM

David: "Gaza has a perfectly open border with Egypt."

Yes, and when I finished flying my pigs last night, we had a beautiful time skiing in hell.

David, just because you are an 'Israel-first' mindless drone doesn't make it ok for you to peddle all the nonsensical lies you tell yourself in public fora. It makes you look really silly.

Posted by Saifedean | June 6, 2007 6:02 PM

"Actually, Ephus, the whole thing is really simple: If Israelis had been in the Palestinians' place, what would they have done?"

The Israelis were in the Palestinians position, before they were called "Israelis" -- in the days of the Palestine Mandate. What the Jews did was resist occupation while at the same time building the institutions of a proto-state, so that when they finally got the occupier to leave, they would have the beginnings of a state rather than descend into anarchy. The Palestinians have done little to none of this sort of institution building, which is why Gaza is such a mess today.

Posted by Louis | June 6, 2007 6:12 PM

Dan K - I think that you hit the nail on the head. As loathe as I am to admit it, it appears that Sharon (whom I blame for egging on the Second Intifada) really was meaningfully moving towards a sustainable two-state solution.

The chicken and egg problems remains with the diffusion of violent actors in Gaza. At this point, central authority has broken down in Gaza. I believe that six years ago, Arafat made the tactical choice to allow Hamas to remain as an armed alternative to the PA, with the goal of pressuring Israel. Arafat's confidence in his ability to manage the chaos, however, was misplaced. Now, numerous armed camps compete in Gaza, and it does not appear that anyone could bring the situation to heel, without widespread intra-Palestinian bloodshed.

I believe that Sharon thought that the PA would recognize the opportunity to achieve a two-state solution and take the steps necessary to implement it. With Sharon, that would have been difficult, but I still submit (contra MY) not "stupid".

One awful consequence of the events of the last five years is that conditions in Gaza have gone from awful to unliveable. Most Israelis, on the other hand, enjoy the benefits of an economy on a par with Western Europe.

Finally, in response to Alan in SF's question, "If the Israelis had been in the Palestinians' position, what would they have done," in 1947, the Hagannah accepted partition borders that fell far short of what they wanted. In fact, there were armed battles against the Jabotinski faction who wanted to hold out for more.

Posted by Ephus | June 6, 2007 6:20 PM

I don't think Sharon was moving towards a 2 state solution. He was moving towards a smaller greater Israel mainly to get rid of the parts that are full of Palestinians. I don't think he had any interest in a Palestinian state or any interest in peace.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 6, 2007 6:33 PM

Gary, I think what you say amounts to the same thing. He wanted a mini-greater Israel that included the pre-1967 lines, plus the Old City and a few of the major population centers among the WB settlements.

But he recognized something that Bush, Netanyahu and company still haven't: that even this reduced vision of greater Israel was impossible if they did not extricate themselves from the Palestinians. Obviously that was not going to happen overnight, but it would have been closer to a post-colonial handoff (with all the attendant difficulties and more) than a battle for survival, which is what they now face. I really do think that Sharon saw that. Too late, but that has been a running theme in this conflict...

Posted by dan k | June 6, 2007 6:44 PM

Yes, I agree with that Dan. I agree that Sharon would have refrained from some heavy handed counter-attacks. But I think he would have continued strategic military operations to keep the Palestinians defenseless. I think his plan would certainly have delayed the end, but not nearly as long as a legitimate 2 state solution.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 6, 2007 7:01 PM

It's stunning that there are seemingly intelligent people who still think the withdrawal from Gaza was some sort of move on the part of the Israelis toward a two-state solution.

From the horse's mouth:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.

"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

...

"...what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

Posted by RJPeabody | June 6, 2007 9:27 PM

I don't think Matt is correctly describing what many Israelis hoped for in connection with the unilateral withdrawal.

Many people hoped that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank (and Gaza), though not enough to end the conflict, would be enough to scale it down for an extended time. The Palestinians, though not satisfied with a partial Israeli withdrawal as a basis for ending the conflict, might have found it in their interest to concentrate on making the best of whatever they had while continuing to demand more through peaceful channels. In fact, the Palestinians would almost surely be better off now and for many years to come if they had done this. For one thing, in this case Olmert would surely have tried to go ahead with his plan to withdraw from much, probably most, of the West Bank.

So why didn't the Palestinians do this? Presumably a combination of two reasons. People aren't always rational, and the Palestinians are no exception to that. And Sharon, by chosing not to coordinate the withdrawal from Gaza with Palestinian President Abbas, humiliated the Palestinian moderates and gave a maximum voice to the most extreme elements.

Of course, I described above the views of many people in the Israeli center-left who supported the idea of unilateral withdrawal. Many of them hoped that a partial unilateral withdrawal would create conditions in which negotiations on a more
full solution would be possible eventually. Sharon's attitude presumably was different, or he would have chosen to coordinate the withdrawal from Gaza with the Palestinians.

Posted by strings | June 6, 2007 10:54 PM

So people are blaming Israel for not supplying jobs to Palestinians ? Unbelievable.

Either you want Palestinian independence from Israel, or you don't.

Posted by David | June 7, 2007 1:37 AM

We should have just acted more honestly about Oslo. We shouldn't have kicked everything hard down the road. We shouldn't have made a take-it-or-leave-it offer that wasn't what we had previously agreed on, and then refused to let the Palestinians make a counter-offer. Nothing will ever prove to the world that we were dishonest actors in this process more than that did.

David. People are responsible for what happens in territory they own. They can't confiscate all taxes collected by the Palestinian government, box them in and refuse to let them control their own roads, and then claim they have no effect on the Palestinian economy. I have no choice but to assume that you're dishonest and biased. Israeli racism is hard to ignore. They care about their own people, and nobody else. They clearly don't care about their non-jewish citizens, or about the people in the territories they claim.

Posted by soullite | June 7, 2007 9:32 AM

"But he recognized something that Bush, Netanyahu and company still haven't: that even this reduced vision of greater Israel was impossible if they did not extricate themselves from the Palestinians."

Sharon told Bush not to allow the last Palestinian elections to go forward, but Bush overruled him (democracy in the Middle East and all that.) This led to a Hamas government.

Yes they've been economically strangling the Palestinians ever since, but as Friedman said, if the US can talk with Iran, Israel can talk with Hamas.

Hitchens made a funny point (at the Zionists' expense also) recently:

"And we had better hope that forces among the Lebanese and Palestinians are strong enough to do our fighting for us. (A very striking recent report quoted spokesmen from Hamas becoming extremely worried by the growth of al-Qaida in Palestinian refugee camps, where every economic and cultural initiative is now being interdicted by absolutist fundamentalism. It would be amusing to see these glib spokesmen for Muslim fanaticism being outflanked and menaced from the right, if it were not so terrifying.)"
http://www.slate.com/id/2167542/

Posted by Peter K. | June 7, 2007 12:04 PM

Israel will not withdraw from the hills that overlook Tel-Aviv, if those will be used to shell it.

(Just injecting a bit of common sense here)

Posted by Ron | June 7, 2007 2:03 PM

Israel will not withdraw from the hills that overlook Tel-Aviv, if those will be used to shell it.

You managed to pick the point farthest from every sort of border as it exists in Israel so I'm not sure if you are being clever or ignorant.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 7, 2007 9:20 PM

Israel will not withdraw from the hills that overlook Tel-Aviv, if those will be used to shell it.

You managed to pick the point farthest from every sort of border as it exists in Israel so I'm not sure if you are being clever or ignorant.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 7, 2007 9:20 PM

>You managed to pick the point farthest from every >sort of border as it exists in Israel so I'm not >sure if you are being clever or ignorant.

Google maps is your friend. Israel's coastal strip is extremely narrow. The hilly West Bank is the topographical backbone of the land between the river and the sea.

Posted by Ron | June 8, 2007 4:10 AM