Making Nice

Unrelated to climate change, Israeli and Palestinians just completed a meeting, chaired by the foreign minister of Norway, aimed at re-starting the foreign aid process to the Palestinian Authority in a post-Hamas era. At the post-game press conference, there's a remarkably nineties-esque spirit of cooperation. The Palestinian prime minister says the meeting was "quite successful," and Tzipi Livni used her opening statement to say she "would like to make it clear on the opening that the creation of a Palestinian state is in the Israeli interest" and that while the specific subject at hand had been improving day-to-day life among the Palestinians, but that Israel wants "also to help in building the foundation for the future Palestinian state."

Naturally, I agree. It's actually fairly remarkable, given the depth, duration, and intensity of the conflict, that there's very little in the way of objective conflict of interests between the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Comments

I fear both parties are posing for the camera. Both leaders are to weak to make concessions that would be needed to get agreement from the other side.

In any case, creating a Palestinian State risks having that state being taken over by Hamas (or something like it) or by Syria (as in Lebanon). In other words, creating a Palestinian State is not likely to bring peace. It is more likely to provide Hamas with a never-ending source of armaments.

Posted by Fred | September 24, 2007 1:54 PM

Correction: There's very little in the way of objective conflict of interests between the actual parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, namely the Israelis and Palestinians.

Unfortunately, the conflict is increasingly becoming a proxy war between Muslims who hate Americans and Americans who hate Muslims. And both sides of THAT dispute have a vested interest in making sure the conflict is never resolved.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 24, 2007 2:00 PM

"there's very little in the way of objective conflict of interests between the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute"

I don't get this. What about settlements, borders, and refugees?

Posted by neil in ottawa | September 24, 2007 2:01 PM

there's very little in the way of objective conflict of interests between the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

/rimshot/
Settlements? Right of return? Jordan to the Sea? etc...

Posted by foolishmortal | September 24, 2007 2:03 PM

In any case, creating a Palestinian State risks having that state being taken over by Hamas (or something like it) or by Syria (as in Lebanon). In other words, creating a Palestinian State is not likely to bring peace. It is more likely to provide Hamas with a never-ending source of armaments.

I have no idea if this is true, but I will concede it is possible.

But the proper response would be "so what?". The case for Palestinian statehood is that Palestinian Arabs were the unintended victims of the (entirely justified) creation of a Jewish homeland. And the alternatives are not tenable-- Israel doesn't want to give all of them political rights, because it would upset the demographic balance. The other Arab states don't want to take them. Further, they have connections to the land that was Mandate Palestine, and many of them have their homes in the West Bank.

At bottom, a Palestinian state is the only path consistent with the Palestinians' right to self-government.

An imperfect comparison to this would be creation of Pakistan. Undoubtedly, the creation of Pakistan resulted in warfare with India which was bad for the Indians. However, to not create Pakistan would have privileged Hindu claims over Muslims and denied the Muslims self-government.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 24, 2007 2:35 PM

Matt: these were negotiations between Israel and the Fatah-lead PA, right? Was the assumption that aid would be restored to only the West Bank, or to both the West Bank and Gaza? Because if it's the former, then I don't think these developments are terribly surprising - just a sign that Israel is going ahead with the Washington-endorsed (and fantastically wrongheaded) "starve Hamastan" plan.

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 2:42 PM

the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute

Who are "the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute"?

Because it seems to me that a significant subset of one of the parties has an interest in seeing the other party cease to exist. And that seems to me to present a genuine conflict...

Posted by Al | September 24, 2007 2:47 PM

Because it seems to me that a significant subset of one of the parties has an interest in seeing the other party cease to exist. And that seems to me to present a genuine conflict...

Provide evidence that any significant amount of the Palestinian people want Jews to cease to exist. And bear in mind that pro-Israel partisans like Abe Foxman aren't in any position to explain Palestinian desires.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 3:08 PM

Re Freddie

The stated position of the Hamas faction is that the State of Israel is illegitimate and that the Government of Israel must agree to go out of business as part of any settlement. The Palestinians voted the Hamas faction into power. However, even if the Hamas faction in the Gaza Strip wanted to change their position, they are unable to do so as long as Khaled Maashel calls the shots from Damascus.

Posted by SLC | September 24, 2007 3:19 PM

The stated position of the Hamas faction is that the State of Israel is illegitimate and that the Government of Israel must agree to go out of business as part of any settlement.

Yes. Hamas is a pack of assholes. But Hamas is no more a surrogate for the Palestinian people than the Republican party is a surrogate for the American people, and I asked about the desire to eliminate the Jewish people, not the illegitimacy of the Israeli state.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 3:25 PM

Regarding Hamas vs. Fatah, though -- what of Fatah's latest attempts to siphon off more charitable donations, er, crack down on "charities" giving money to Hamas?

While I deplore Hamas, Fatah's recent power grab can't be good ... indeed, it'll hurt Israel because Israel will be seen as being supportive of the corrupt Fatah over the less corrupt Hamas. Hamas may be a bunch of terrorists, but they do have some popularity -- and (fortunately for Israel) this popularity has little to do with their anti-Israeli stance.

OTOH, just as in the USA, sometimes people hook up with the GOP on single issues (abortion, taxes) and the GOP is very good at getting those people to drink the kool-aid, this might be a concern with Hamas.

So how do we develop true charitable concerns that don't succomb to the corruption of Fatah nor go the way of Hamas (which originally was nurtured by Israel, wasn't it?) into violence?

Posted by DAS | September 24, 2007 3:35 PM

Because it seems to me that a significant subset of one of the parties has an interest in seeing the other party cease to exist. And that seems to me to present a genuine conflict...

It's true. Effi Eitam and Beitenu Yisrael's position on "transfer" makes it very clear that there are some that wish that the Palestinians cease to exist and that they should be pushed into the Jordan River or, failing that, into Jordan. Nice catch, Al. (That's what you meant, right?)

Posted by Yigal Amir | September 24, 2007 3:39 PM

Matt is right here. The one thing that makes a surprising move towards peace always possible is that no matter how horribly they mess things up in the interim, over 90% of the people on each side would benefit from a Geneva Accords like agreement.

That number changes a bit as more Israelis move into settlements designed to lock in East Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem gets more isolated from the West Bank. But the look of a final peace does not really change much over time, and it changes from one of a possible peace to one of no possibility for peace rather than a different formula for peace.

So for those pushing for peace there is only one basic direction to push. That was Barak's great accomplishment by putting forth a division of Jerusalem, he made it clear what peace would look like, even though he did not actually propose it.

Posted by Lon | September 24, 2007 3:45 PM

Lon's right, except the Barak/Clinton offer really wasn't that good, but perhaps Arafat should have taken it anyway.

Palestinians elected Hamas because Fatah has been unbelieveably corrupt for a long time, Hamas provides many social services and, most importantly, Israel never gave Fatah anything to show the people it supposedly represented.

In a sense, Bush's push for democracy in the Middle East worked. The Palestinians "signaled" what they want, they want anything else besides a thoroughly corrupt party like Fatah who doesn't deliver. Sharon warned him not to do it, but the election went ahead anyway.

Hamas is a violent, religious party, so it's doomed to failure however. Any violence is playing into the hands of the rightwing Israeli nationalists who would like nothing better than expel all of the Palestinians.

The region's demographics are not in Israel's favor. Hezbollah's victorious little war last summer shows Israel needs to get its act together, instead of just building walls and settlements and facts on the ground and bombing Syria. Sooner or later Iran will get nukes and then things could get ugly.

Posted by Peter K. | September 24, 2007 4:14 PM

Peter K.,

The financial markets seem to be pretty optimistic about Israel's prospects, check out how the Tel Aviv stock exchange's TA-100 index has performed since last summer. I think this is for good reason.

The separation barriers along the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have dramatically reduced the threat of terrorism. The major near-term problem now is the threat of rocket attacks, both by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel is currently working on a technological solution to this, and if they succeed, it will render this provocation tactic by Hamas and Hezbollah impotent. If Israel can defend itself with an anti-rocket system, it will obviate the need for major ground assaults and deny Hamas and Hezbollah the propaganda and ambush opportunities these assaults provide.

The possibility of Iranian nukes remains a threat, but it's not one that would be eliminated by final status negotiations with the Palestinians. It's also one being addressed by international diplomacy. It's hardly inevitable that Iran will gain nukes, and in any case, the bright side to this has been to reduce tensions between Israel and its moderate Arab neighbors, as they all see Iran as the greater threat.

Another positive trend for peace, though little reported here, is the recent broadening of prosperity and capitalism in parts of the Arab World, from Dubai to Cairo. Increasing prosperity and economic opportunity lowers political tensions, which further increases economic prospects in a virtuous cycle. It also reduces the support for terrorist groups eager to throw cold water on all of this.

Ultimately, a strong and prosperous Israel is a plus for the Palestinians, because that's the sort of Israel that they will be able to make a final deal with. That won't happen until the anti-rocket system is developed though.

Posted by Juan | September 24, 2007 4:48 PM

Dilan said

At bottom, a Palestinian state is the only path consistent with the Palestinians' right to self-government.

I don't deeply disagree, I just think you can't sell the Palestinian State as a path to peace, because it isn't.

The likelihood of a new Palestine giving self-government to its citizens is low: Democracy is apparently not easily grafted onto Arab culture.

I think the area will be re-partitioned, eventually, into a Palestine and an Israel. I just don't think it will solve much.

Posted by Fred | September 24, 2007 5:37 PM

I don't deeply disagree, I just think you can't sell the Palestinian State as a path to peace, because it isn't.

I would rather that there be peace, and I think there are ways we can create some incentives that might increase the possibility of peace within a 2 state solution. Nonetheless, the case for Palestinian statehood does not depend on there being peace.

The likelihood of a new Palestine giving self-government to its citizens is low: Democracy is apparently not easily grafted onto Arab culture.

You need to draw a distinction between legitimacy and democracy. There are two different things. Democracy in Palestine may or may not be achieved (although it should be noted that the Palestinian Authority, for all of its problems, does hold multiparty elections, unlike most of the Arab states).

But what I call "self-government" is dependent on whether the government is seen as legitimate, not necessarily whether it is democratic. For instance, Pakistan's government is not currently very democratic; but it is more legitimate to Pakistanis than a Hindu-led government in Delhi would be.

And whether or not Palestine is ultimately democratic, a two state solution at least seems like it would be more likely to lead to a government that has some legitimacy.

All that aside, I do think you are somewhat overpessimistic about the peace process. It's easy to get discouraged, but remember that even with the flawed Yasser Arafat and Bibi Netanyahu in charge of the respective parties, things were a lot better for a period in the 1990's. Against all odds, these things sometimes can work.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 24, 2007 5:57 PM

There's this weird insistence around here that the Palestinians don't hold the positions that they hold.

In a thread late last week, I had to go 12 rounds over whether there was an issue over the disposition of Palestinian refugees. As though Palestinian refugee camps have been maintained for nearly 60 years out of some flight of fancy.

Now I see the dispute over Israel's right to exist turned into a semantic game. Israel will be one party to any peace agreement--not "the Jewish people." Palestinian leaders, from Arafat to the elected government of Hamas, have consistently refused to concede that Israel is entitled to continue to exist. Without such a concession, it is hard to see how there can be any negotiated agreement.

The disposition of Jerusalem and control of the borders are also crucially important conflicts of interest.

This is not to cast aspersions on the Palestinian position; Palestinians have valid, understandable reasons for insisting upon their view of these issues.

But it is fatuous to deny that such issues exist, and ridiculous to suggest that "there's very little in the way of objective conflict of interests between the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute."

Posted by southpaw | September 24, 2007 5:58 PM

"..there's very little in the way of objective conflict of interests between the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute..."

I think what Matt's saying is that the moderates on both sides know (and have known since January 2001- after intense negotiations in Taba, Egypt (post-Camp David), that led to the framework of the Clinton Plan, which is similar to the Saudi Plan, which is not too far off from the Geneva Accords) what a final agreement will look like.

So I think Matt's correct that there do seem to be few obstacles in the way of (moderate) Israeli and Palestinian negotiators reaching an agreement on paper. There are, however (and obviously) several obstacles to the actual implementation of that agreement, including: the Palestinian people agreeing to give up (for the most part) the right of return to their 1948 homes in Israel proper (settling instead for a right of return to the newly created Palestinian State); the Settler movement in Israel with the support of other Right-wing groups/Likud/Shas which, while NOT representing the majority of Israelis (who favor a two-State solution), will fiercely oppose the removal of any West Bank settlements (making the withdrawal from Gaza look like a day at the beach); Hamas, which continues to be isolated in Gaza despite their continued influence among a significant portion of the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank; and finally, the (usual) members of the Bush Administration (e.g. VP Cheney and Douglas Feith) who have in the past worked behind the scenes to undermine progress (and reportedly the efforts of Condi Rice and Sec. Def. Gates) towards achieving an agreement acceptable to both sides.

In other words, the obstacles that lie ahead are real and formidable (though I pray, not insurmountable).

Posted by Aaron | September 24, 2007 6:15 PM

Now I see the dispute over Israel's right to exist turned into a semantic game. Israel will be one party to any peace agreement--not "the Jewish people." Palestinian leaders, from Arafat to the elected government of Hamas, have consistently refused to concede that Israel is entitled to continue to exist. Without such a concession, it is hard to see how there can be any negotiated agreement.

As I said above, I was responding to Fred's claim that the Palestinian people advocate the extermination of the Is

Also-- a), it is factually inaccurate to say that Palestinian leaders have universally denied Israel's right to exist, and b), the failures of the Palestinian leadership shouldn't be placed totally on the Palestinian leadership.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 7:16 PM

Now I see the dispute over Israel's right to exist turned into a semantic game. Israel will be one party to any peace agreement--not "the Jewish people." Palestinian leaders, from Arafat to the elected government of Hamas, have consistently refused to concede that Israel is entitled to continue to exist. Without such a concession, it is hard to see how there can be any negotiated agreement.

I think this issue is mainly one of symbolism, on both sides.

What Israel wants and needs is a Palestine that doesn't launch attacks on it (and cracks down on militants who do). We'll call this state "1". What Israel doesn't want is a Palestine that attacks it or that cannot or will not control attacks from within its territory. We'll call this state "2".

The point is, a state "1" that maintained some vestigial claim that the creation of Israel should never have happened would nonetheless be far superior to a state "2" which formally recognized Israel's right to exist and removed every offending word from the Palestinian charter.

I think the "won't recognize Israel's right to exist" meme survives more because its an excuse for opponents of the peace process to argue that the Palestinians really aren't interested in peace. But in this case, actions truly should speak louder than words.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 24, 2007 8:23 PM

Other than the fact that the official position of Hamas, the elected representative of the Palestinian people, is that Israel should be destroyed. And Israel says Hamas is nothing more than terrorists.

Other than those two obstacles, the whole dispute really should get settled very quickly.

Posted by matt D | September 24, 2007 11:39 PM

"The stated position of the Hamas faction is that the State of Israel is illegitimate and that the Government of Israel must agree to go out of business as part of any settlement."

Which is the correct position to take, since it's absolutely true.

Because the real problem is not particularly the Palestinian people, or even the Israeli people.

The real problem are the people in power on both sides - and especially the Zionist power seekers in Israel.

Get rid of them, and presto! I suspect a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as an open city would exist within a year. Which is still not the proper solution, but at least it would happen.

But with the Zionist war criminals in power in Israel, and a bunch of corrupt Fatah people in power in Palestine, it's never going to happen.

Hamas is the least of the problems in Palestine. Isolate them and the next thing you know, you'll be dealing with Al Qaeda in Palestine, not Fatah OR Hamas. And you won't get even Hamas level of willingness to negotiate then.

There is only one correct and functional solution to the Palestinian issue: a bi-national state called Palestine which has full equal rights for all its citizens regardless of nationality or religion, a total acceptance of a Palestinian right of return to all lands that can be proven to be owned by them prior to 1948, and a guarantee of no state-sponsored aggression by either Palestinians or Jews enforced by the international community, and the complete nuclear disarmament by Israel.

So as usual, Matt doesn't understand anything of what is going on here - unless his last paragraph was intended to be sarcastic.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 25, 2007 3:48 AM

There is only one correct and functional solution to the Palestinian issue: a bi-national state called Palestine which has full equal rights for all its citizens regardless of nationality or religion, a total acceptance of a Palestinian right of return to all lands that can be proven to be owned by them prior to 1948, and a guarantee of no state-sponsored aggression by either Palestinians or Jews enforced by the international community, and the complete nuclear disarmament by Israel.

That's not a functional solution at all (I will leave aside "correct" for a moment), for the same reason that an India that included the territories of Pakistan and Bangladesh was not possible. Indeed, for the same reason that only a Saddam Hussein could govern a united Iraq and only a Marshall Tito could govern a united Yugoslavia.

Look, partitions happen, and they happen because people can't always live together or look past sectarian conflict. And that is certainly true in the Middle East.

And partition means that some people aren't going to be able to live in their ancestral homes. That's horrible-- and if we had 1947 to live over again, I would hope we would do things a lot differently, either in terms of where to locate the Jewish homeland or how to deal with the situation of the people who were already living there.

But this is 2007, not 1947. Even if you think 1947 was a grave injustice, it is an irreversible one. Israel was born in a state of original sin.

So what you have to do is create the best 2 state solution you can.

As for what is "correct", I don't see how a 2 state solution isn't "correct" so long as those who lost their homes are compensated.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 25, 2007 3:30 PM