Costs of War: Too Late for Two States?
By Shaun Waterman for ISN
Given the external pagerecent diplomatic spat between Israel and the US over new settlement building, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s speech Monday to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee - universally referred to as AIPAC and universally known as the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington - was a potentially tricky moment for the secretary of state.
Overall, she struck a conciliatory tone, and she emphasized, in what has become a required genuflection by US officials addressing such an audience that “for President Obama and for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is rock solid, unwavering, enduring, and forever.”
But in the 45-minute address, external pagebroadcast by C-Span and external pagetranscribed by the State Department, she also made a clear argument for the administration’s case that progress on the Palestinian issue is essential for the future of Israel.
“There is, I think, a belief among many that the status quo can be sustained,” she said. “But the dynamics of demography, ideology, and technology make this impossible.”
Clinton stumbled slightly as she echoed Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s observations about the implications of the higher Palestinian birthrate. “The inexorable mathematics of democracy, of demography are hastening the hour at which Israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and staying true to the dream of a Jewish homeland,” she said, concluding that “Given this reality, a two-state solution is the only viable path for Israel to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state.”
But Clinton also took the argument a step further, linking progress on the Palestinian issue to broader US and Israeli interests in the region, specifically, the effort to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
“Those willing to negotiate need to be able to show results for their efforts,” she said, in a reference to the Palestinians and other Arabs committed to dialogue with Israel. “All of our regional challenges – confronting the threat posed by Iran, combating violent extremism, promoting democracy and economic opportunity – become harder if the rejectionists grow in power and influence.”
And Clinton also alluded to another reason why such progress is key to wider US security goals and interests.
She said that when she had traveled the world as first lady in the 1990s “it was rare that people in places far from the Middle East ever mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” but that now when she traveled to such places, it is “the first, second, or third issue” raised.
Security interests
The link between progress toward a solution to the Palestinian problem and US security interests was also made last week by US Central Command chief General David Petraeus in external pagecongressional testimony.
The continued stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel,” Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships” in the region “and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes” there.
“Meanwhile,” Petraeus concluded, “al-Qaida and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support [and] the conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world.”
Petraeus’ comments drew immediate criticism from some of Israel’s more ardent US supporters.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, external pagewrote that such an emphasis on the Palestinian question “inevitably” means “that Israel comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop settlements, if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only Israel would make concessions on refugees, if only it would share Jerusalem, everything in the region would be fine […]. Of course, this is nonsense.”
What is really nonsense, in fact, is Foxman’s criticism.
In reality, the notion that a homeland for the Palestinians alongside Israel is the best outcome for US as well as Israeli interests is what motivates the most high-minded allies of the Jewish state in the US (as opposed, for instance, to those supporters of Israel who believe the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza will hasten the second coming of Christ).
Time running out
The Obama administration’s case may be clear and sensible. Its arguments may be well made. But alas, that counts for very little in the Middle East, and some evidence suggests that time may already be running out for the two-state solution.
A external pagerecent poll of Israelis and Palestinians revealed that while a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians still support a two-state solution, support is falling fast, especially among Palestinians.
Waleed Ladadweh from the external pagePalestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research said support among Palestinians for a two-state solution (as opposed to a single, bi-national state for both Israelis and Palestinians) had declined from 64 percent in December 2009 to 57 percent currently.
Nabil Kukali, Director of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, said that Palestinian support was ebbing because of growing skepticism about the peace process. “There are some changes in attitudes towards the two-state solution," he said.
"The Palestinians feel hopeless and they don't think the Israelis will give the Palestinians one meter of their land."
Clinton was correct to point out that stalemate feeds rejectionism, and 20 years of (more-or-less) stalemate has fed Palestinian rejectionism and undermined their support for the peace process.