Krystal Ball and Emily Jashinsky report on the current awful state of the war Bibi Netanyahu’s Israeli government is waging out against Palestinian civilians in Gaza with what looks to be essentially unconditional support from the Biden Administration. Biden’s foreign policy on Israel seems to be identifical at the moment with that of Donald Trump and Trump’s core far-right Christian Zionist supporters. (1)
The Obama Administration (2009-2017) didn’t accomplish much at all to bring about a significant move toward a stable peace for Israel-Palestine. He did make some efforts. But Netanyahu became Prime Minister a couple of months after Obama became President in 2009. So Obama faced a major challenge to doing anything constructive on that front.
Obama did have several weeks of war in Gaza to deal with in 2014, which Israel named Operation Protective Edge, and a smaller clash in 2012. We hear these days that his Vice President Joe Biden was constantly pushing him to take a more supportive position towards Israel’s actions against Palestinians.
Obama made this statement in 2011 (2):
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace. [my emphasis]Obama was sticking to the longtime US position in favor of a two-state solution:
Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.Like on many issues, Obama had a knack for eloquently stating positions that often were not matched by substantive accomplishments.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. [my emphasis] [my emphasis]
The last substantive diplomatic agreement the US was able to achieve on Israel-Palestine was the Oslo Accords of 1993.(3) It was mainly an agreement to keep neogotiating for a final agreement.
It has become a talking point for Democrats like Hillary Clinton who support Israeli intransigence against the two-state solution to say that Israel offered the Palestinian Liberation Organization a Palestinian state and that the PLO broke off negotiations.
That is simply not the case. Oslo was among other things an agreement to keep negotiating over a two-state solution. It was Benjamin Netanyahu’s government that eventually broke off (suspended) the negotiations in 2010, which had foundered for years over Israeli support of the settler movement in the West Bank. The timeline goal in the original agreement had been five years, e.g., 1998. “Despite his best efforts, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, failed to get the Netanyahu government to accept a settlement freeze as a precondition for renewing the peace talks suspended in 2010.” (4)
David Aaron Miller gives a more sensible account of what actually happened (pre-October 7):
For Palestinians, that final outcome [the end goal of the Oslo negotiating framework] was an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. For Israelis, it was TBD—to be determined. Driven by domestic politics and their own doubts about the Palestinians’ capacity for statehood and what it might mean for Israeli security, neither Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin nor his successor Shimon Peres were prepared to commit to any agreed outcome—even as an aspirational vision. You can look long and hard for the term “Palestinian state” in the Oslo documents, but you won’t find it. It would take another half-dozen years before the idea of statehood worked its way into Israel’s negotiating assumptions. Not until 2001, as U.S. President Bill Clinton left office, did the United States formally and publicly articulate support for a two-state solution.The “two-state solution” idea could be the formal basis for renewed formal negotiations. But after the current all-out assault on Gaza, which shows ugly signs of turning into a new Nakba (ethnic cleansing [the Arab word itself means “catastrophe”]), it’s hard to see that the real practical choices for a peace settlement are anything other than an apartheid Jewish state in “Eretz Israel” (the Zionist and Likud version of “from the river to the sea”) with Arabs as at lest second-class citiens, or a democratic and secular state including both Jewish and Arab citizens on a equal basis.
With no clear end goal to work toward, the process floundered. By 1999, not a single Oslo deadline had been met. Negotiations on permanent status had begun three times but produced nothing, and neither Israelis nor Palestinians could see where things were headed. But both had grown weary and wary of a seemingly never-ending interim process punctuated by Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansion.
The result was the situation we have now: a strategic cul-de-sac in which the two sides are stuck and the gaps on issues such as borders and Jerusalem are as wide as the Grand Canyon, with no shared vision and no faith that one will ever materialize. (5) [my emphasis]
The “two-state solution” idea could be the formal basis for renewed formal negotiations. But after the current all-out assault on Gaza, which shows ugly signs of turning into a new Nakba (ethnic cleansing), it’s hard to see that the real practical choices for a peace settlement are anything other than some for of a one-state solution.
Full post also available at: https://brucemillerca.substack.com/p/any-real-hope-left-for-a-two-state
(1) BREAKING: Israel RETREATS? Bibi SHUT DOWN By Court. Breaking Points YouTube channel 01/02/2024.
(2) Obama, Barack (2011): Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa 05/19/2011.
Knell, Yolande (2023): Oslo Accords: 30 years of lost Palestinian hopes. BBC News 09/13/2023.
(4) Shlaim, Aviu (2023): It's now clear: the Oslo peace accords were wrecked by Netanyahu's bad faith. The Guardian 09/12/2023.
(5) Miller, Aaron David (2023): Why the Oslo Peace Process Failed. Foreign Policy 09/13/2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment