[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus and Rutland Herald.]
here are a number of truths that involve the Middle East and the Arab/Israeli impasse. The first is that the best, most pragmatic solution to the problem for both sides is the two-state solution. It is the only way all those involved have a chance of getting any part of what they want. The Palestinians would get their own state and some physical connector between the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis, having received guarantees for their peace and security, would probably get at least some of their West Bank settlements. Both sides would get some sort of hegemony over parts of Jerusalem. Everyone would get an absence of war.
Having said that, it looks extremely doubtful that we are going to see that solution reached. Under Bibi Netanyahu, Israel has said clearly that it does not want a two-state solution. In a June speech, his demands for Palestine to have no arms, no control over its airspace, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and no consideration of either the long-cherished Palestinian “right to return” or hegemony over any of Jerusalem, he managed to hit just about every button that is unacceptable to Palestinians and, by extension to Muslims in general. At the same time, his only “concession” to the Palestinians was the creation of a gutted state completely at the mercy of Israel. It would seem that his formulation was consciously designed to preclude any serious future discussion of a two-state solution.
Since the recent publishing of the Goldstone report on Israeli activities in the recent Gaza fighting and the successful push by Israel to get America and ultimately the Palestinian Authority (PA) to help quash that report, Netanyahu’s government has made it quite obvious that it wishes to diminish the moderate role of the PA and leave Israel only a hostile Hamas to deal with, thus guaranteeing there will be no peace treaty.
For their part, Hamas and Hizballah have repeatedly demonstrated that under current circumstances, they are not interested in giving Israel any sort of peace.
America’s invasion of Iraq and our subsequent regional policies have been major catalysts in the rising instability in the region: Iraq’s historical role as a counterbalance to Iranian regional aspirations was ended with the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Baathis who maintained order in Iraq, and the subsequent installation of a Shia government there. In wiping out Saddam’s Iraq, we empowered Iran and the Shia and diminishing Sunni regional power to the benefit of Iran. By leaving Afghanistan for Iraq, we have re- empowered the Taliban, creating a threat to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most important, our actions have rekindled Iran’s centuries-old dreams of regional hegemony, which may well have been a critical component in the focus of their nuclear decisions.
If regional stability is our goal, as it certainly should be, then everything we have done has threatened our interests there. How then is this likely to play out? Frankly, if a two-state solution cannot be reached, all the alternatives are bad for everyone involved. In examining these, consider that Israel was founded and sees itself as a democratic, Jewish state.
The Arabs, Palestinians included, would probably prefer a one-state solution. This would mean the West Bank, Gaza and Israel all part of the same state. Once created and if democratic, today’s Arab minority would soon turn into a majority – the law of demographics – and Israel would no longer be a Jewish state. This would certainly be a disaster for Israel.
Israel might opt for disenfranchising all its Arab citizens, guaranteeing a future of sorts for a Jewish state, but ending its democracy. Or it might literally eject those same Palestinians with the same result – a Jewish, but non-democratic state. This course of action would be violation of who the Israeli Jews really are and a public relations and international disaster for them.
Unfortunately, there is an additional, even worse possibility. That is the indefinite maintenance of the status quo with the Jews and the Palestinians continuing today’s paramilitary/military battle forever, the Jews supported by the United States and the Palestinians supported by their Muslim brethren. This “solution”, quite apart from the misery it will cause in Israel and Palestine, will keep the rest of the Middle East and Islam in a constant state of military readiness and instability. It is not a pleasant prospect. It will create and maintain a level of instability in the region and in the world which we have not heretofore seen. This would be humanitarian disaster for all involved.
Any sane person who looks at the current realities in the Middle East has to ask how it is possible that all the parties are not clamoring for the two-state solution? Where roughly 60 percent of Palestinian and Israeli citizens would accept such a solution if it met most of the needs of their countries, the people in charge clearly are not as eager.
The fact is that there is a limited number of possibilities for the future of the region and none of them favor either side. Yet, apparently each side truly believes that it can refuse such a solution and still “win.” This means casting in stone the Israeli goal of expanding its settlements into a pure, Jewish state encompassing virtually all of the West Bank, and the Arab goal of maintaining “the right to return”, which would effectively be the end of the democratic, Jewish state of Israel.
Neither side will allow the other to “win” and unless a reasonable two-state solution can be reached, it looks as if the region is about to be condemned to perpetual conflict with all the instability that will bring to America and the rest of the world.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in East and West Europe, the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.
Rural Ruminations 