Rigging the Game Against Palestinians

Official Washington’s neocons are busy spinning the latest U.S. failure to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace as an excuse to extend the Israeli occupation indefinitely by insisting that the Palestinians first pass some ever-receding test of quality self-governance, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar notes.

By Paul R. Pillar

Now that Secretary of State John Kerry’s attempt to breathe life into the diplomacy known as the Middle East peace process has been widely pronounced – even by those who appropriately salute his efforts – to be a failure, different quarters are chiming in with recommendations for what to do next about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some suggestions are helpful; others would only help to perpetuate the Israeli occupation and lack of an agreement, and may be tacitly intended to do just that.

The New York Times editorial board proposes that the United States, as a last act before ending this phase of its active diplomacy on the problem, post on the international bulletin board its own sense of what the principles of a final settlement ought to look like. This is probably worth doing, and it has the merit of reflecting the fact that the basic lines of a feasible two-state solution have been apparent for some time.

Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post.

Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post.

Perhaps this would help to clarify who is resisting such a settlement and who is not. This has been tried before, however, most notably with the Clinton parameters, and it was insufficient to push the process over a finish line.

A couple of other limitations and uncertainties, revealed in the most recent diplomacy, would have to be overcome for such a U.S. declaration of principles to help. One concerns whether the Obama administration would be able and willing to backtrack on how, in its recent efforts to get some kind of preliminary agreement, it moved away from the consensus feasible settlement and adopted certain Israeli positions, such as regarding a continued troop presence in the Jordan River valley, that were bound to be unacceptable to any Palestinian leader.

The other uncertainty concerns the ability of one of the parties – with the Israeli government demonstrating this skill in virtuoso form – to use mixtures of procedural and substantive issues to put off any agreement even without explicitly rejecting U.S.-promulgated principles. The Netanyahu government has done this with its “Jewish state” demand and, more recently, with its reneging on a commitment to release Palestinian prisoners. The latter tactic resembles the familiar North Korean ploy of selling the same horse twice by making new demands for compensation in return for doing something it was already supposed to do anyway.

A different, but old and familiar, proposal that comes from those most sympathetic to an indefinite Israeli occupation has been voiced anew by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post and Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for New East Policy. This notion is that a Palestinian state is not something to be created from above through negotiations but built up from below through a long process of developing Palestinian institutions.

The idea is that statehood is not a gift to be given to the Palestinians, but something they must earn by being good administrators. The appropriate role for the United States and other outsiders, according to this formulation, is to provide assistance and tutelage in being good administrators.

Thus Diehl says, “The Obama administration could have kept the forward movement going by continuing to promote the construction of Palestinian institutions – including a democratic, corruption-resistant government – and by pushing Israel to turn over more security responsibility and remove impediments to the Palestinian economy.”

Similarly, Singh writes that “a greater emphasis should be placed on Palestinian economic growth and reform” and addressing “corruption in the PA.”

This idea is not a prescription at all for reaching a settlement, ending the occupation, and creating a Palestinian state. It instead is a prescription for extending the occupation indefinitely by making it run smoothly. It is a method for making the principal Israeli sub-contractor for the occupation – because that is what the Palestinian Authority has become – do its part of the occupation duties tolerably well.

Meanwhile, Israel arrogates for itself the function of judge in determining whether the Palestinians have performed well enough to move to the next stage of this game. There will always be some reason why they are declared not yet ready. Corruption, as mentioned by both Diehl and Singh, will be a perennial favorite issue for this purpose.

If necessary, the Israelis can take direct action to make sure the economic and security performance of the Palestinians does not get too good, lest too many people start asking whether they really are ready for a state. The Israelis have done so in the past by trashing Palestinian infrastructure in the West Bank, and of course have done so in a more brutal way with the Gaza Strip in making it as difficult as possible for the Palestinian governing authority there to govern.

Singh states, “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not ripe to be solved.” The obvious, glaring question to be asked in response is, “So when, after 47 years of occupation and more than two decades since the Palestinian Authority was created, will it ever be ripe?”

The actual answer, of course, given the framework Singh is trying to impose, is “never.” But the false promise of statehood at the end of the rainbow helps to keep enough Palestinians docilely on the reservation while the occupation continues.

Diehl tries to encourage the idea that there actually is some sort of progression toward that ever-receding statehood pot at the rainbow’s end by asserting that there has been “cumulatively enormous progress toward coexistence” and the parties “have traveled most of the path to a final settlement.” Totally ignoring trends in Israeli politics over the last 20 years, he would have us (and Palestinians) believe that the Palestinians are closer to having a state now, in the era of Benjamin Netanyahu, than they were when Israeli policy was made by Yitzhak Rabin.

Amazingly, Diehl cites as progress Ariel Sharon’s pull-out from the Gaza Strip, as if a unilateral action leading to a suffocating blockade and destructive military assaults is somehow a step toward a negotiated settlement providing for two states living peacefully beside each other. He also strains to reassure us about the continued construction of Israeli settlements, saying that the pace of colonization has slowed from earlier in the occupation and that most of the new housing is in “areas near the 1967 border,” apparently paying no attention to recent land appropriations that Haaretz describes as the “largest in years.”

Amid the fact-creating on the ground and the false-promise-making in print, it is understandable that more and more people talk of discarding hope for a two-solution and concentrating on trying to obtain human rights within one state. Even the son of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has made this transition. But no one has yet sufficiently explained how the nationalist aspirations of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs could be satisfied this way, and if they cannot, how a one-state solution would endure.

Perhaps action needs to be taken in the name of human rights within a single state, but without discarding the goal of two states. In this regard one of the best suggestions for where things ought to go from here comes from Henry Siegman:

“A two-state outcome is still possible if Palestinians were to take their fate into their own hands, rather than waiting for a deus ex machina, by shutting down institutions such as the Palestinian Authority that serve their subjugators and launching a non-violent, anti-apartheid struggle for equal citizenship in the de facto Greater Israel to which they have been consigned. Such a determined struggle may even convince Israelis to accept a two-state outcome, for the loss of their state’s Jewish identity in a single state in which Jews are outnumbered by Arabs is a price most Israelis will not pay for a Greater Israel.”

Siegman assesses that if Israel still rejected a two-state solution under such conditions, broad international backing for the anti-apartheid struggle would lead even Washington to abandon Israeli apartheid. That is hardly a given, and American policy in such circumstances would still be the most critical variable of all.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)


  5 comments for “Rigging the Game Against Palestinians

  1. borat
    April 16, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    As the academic year at University of California Santa Cruz was about to end in June, 2013, pro-Palestinian students initiated a resolution that called on the university to divest from companies profiting from the “Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.” The resolution was defeated, yet the non-binding resolution that would have no effect on university policy is not as disconcerting as the atmosphere on campus that the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish students and professional provocateurs behind them seek to foster. They are bent on creating a climate that legitimizes and engenders anti-Israel, and anti-Jewish hostility.
    The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel) movement has assembled a rather strange sort of bedfellows. It is led by Arab-Muslim professional propagandists who seek Israel’s destruction, along with leftist students and faculty members seeking a ‘cause,’ and non-better than one “to stick it to the Jews.” Among them, one could find naïve students with little understanding of the history of the Middle East or the Arab-Israeli conflict. It matters not that their cause is unjust, and transparently anti-Semitic, or that the Arab world unlike Israel’s open democracy is homophobic, enslaves women, is utterly intolerant of Christians and Jews, or that its schools breed hatred and misanthropy.
    Those BDS champions on campuses throughout America and Europe do not want to be confused by facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their minds are made up. They hate Israel because it is a success story and tolerant, and because it provides religious freedom, and human rights to its citizens in spite of Palestinian terrorism. They despise Israel because Arab-Muslim students on Israeli campuses can display their hatred of the Jewish state with impunity. Deep in their mashed heads they should know that similar demonstrations on Palestinian or Arab campuses against an Arab regime, or any pro-Israel and pro-Jewish display, would be met with violence and death. The terrorist alerts Israeli school children and college students face is something that the privileged students of the UC Santa Cruz’s of this world would never have to endure. They hate Israel mostly because it is willing to defend its citizens from Palestinian terrorists, and if it means checkpoints, and a barrier fence that inconveniences Palestinians, so be it.
    On May 11, YNet News reported that the Irish BDS movement placed yellow stickers on Israeli products reading ‘for justice in Palestine – Boycott Israel’. Israeli Foreign Ministry said that “the phenomenon is severe and it is not by chance that the BDS organization chose to express its protest with a yellow sticker – which is reminiscent of dark days of racism and incitement,” a reference to the Nazi Holocaust in Europe.
    Derek Hopper, a native of Ireland, where he studied history at the National University of Ireland, had this to say in a Times of Israel article, October 9, 2013: “Israelis may or may not be aware that Ireland is one of the most outspoken critics of Israel. I have written about why this is so before, and the reasons are too complex to address…but for whatever reason most Irish see Palestine as the plucky underdog in the Middle East and not Israel, a country that produces genius after genius while being surrounded by millions of people who despise its very existence.”
    Hopper continued, “Given our own experiences with Britain, we tend to see in any weaker power a kindred spirit. It doesn’t matter that we share many values with Israel and far fewer with Arabs, who, if they’ve heard of us, see us as drink-sodden libertines. Never mind that we should want to draw parallels with Israel, the true underdog in the region who against all the odds created a prosperous democracy in a desert. In this battle many Irish have sided with the Palestinians and that’s just how it is.”
    Hopper explained that, “Irish and global opposition to Israel in recent times has manifested itself in several ways. The most well-known of these is the BDS movement, which seeks to isolate Israel, ‘in order to force change in Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians which opponents claim is discriminatory or oppressive.’ The Irony that the movement is one spearheaded by many Palestinians attending Israeli universities is apparently lost on its supporters. Comparisons with the odious apartheid regime in South Africa continue unabated despite a million Israeli Arab citizens enjoying more rights in Israel than anywhere in the Arab world.”
    Student senates should question why so much time is being spent on critiquing one country – Israel, where democracy prevails, while excluding nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Turkey, China, Hamas in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, where no democracy exists and human rights of citizens are grossly violated, religious freedom is denied to Christians, and where ethnic minorities are being persecuted. The BDS movement denies charges of anti-Semitism but they appear rather hypocritical. To any even-handed observer the movement’s singling out of the world’s only Jewish nations appears suspect if not downright anti-Semitic.
    The mantra often heard during BDS demonstrations is “end the occupation of Palestine.” This canard has no basis in history since there was never a recognized state named Palestine. The 1947 UN vote on partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states was rejected by the Arab-Palestinians. Subsequently, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) while the Egyptians occupied Gaza. During the Jordanian occupation Jews were not allowed into the area, while Palestinian terrorists attacked and killed Israeli civilians within the Green Line.
    UN Resolution 242 called for return of “territories,” not all the territories Israel captured in the Six Day War of June, 1967 and only in return for full peace. While the BDS movement condemns Israeli occupation and settlements, the Hamas founding charter does not mention occupation or settlements. It simply called for the complete destruction of the Jewish state.
    The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) currently headed by Mahmoud Abbas noted in its founding charter, written in 1964 (and not yet amended), three years before the Six Day War, while Jordan was in control of the West Bank, that (article 24) “This organization does not exercise sovereignty over the West Bank,” calling instead for a “liberation of its homeland” meaning all of Israel within the Green Line.
    It is safe to say that terror and violence perpetrated on Israelis has little to do with “occupation and settlements.” The myth that the occupation breeds violence was shredded when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Israel was assured by the International community that if it withdrew from Gaza, peace would flourish and violence would end. This proved to be deadly wrong, as millions of Israelis have been subjected to incessant missile attacks from Gaza. The conflict Israel has with the Palestinians is not about “occupation” of the West Bank, it is about the very existence of a Jewish state in the midst of a triumphalist Arab-Islamic ideology, which is intolerant of any non-Islamic independent political entities.
    The BDS ignorance of Middle East realities can be seen in the inclusion of Gaza as part of Israeli occupation. The BDS movement is not only ignorant of facts it is guilty of hate peddling which has no room on campuses dedicated to learning and exploration of truth. It is high time for the U.S. Congress to enact legislation that bars hateful incitement and false propaganda by the purveyors of anti-Semitism, and their “useful idiots.” It is also time for campus officials to forbid the harassment and intimidation of pro-Israel students. The hypocrisy of the BDS movement is open to be seen and it is now time to act.

  2. John
    April 16, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    Proving they can self govern effectively is a difficult task since Israel has used a divide and conquor program to split Palestinians. They even use the technique in Israel itself to divide Israeli Arabs. They are going to let Christian Israeli Arabs get the benefits of being in the armed forces but not Muslim Israeli Arabs.
    In the occupied land, Israel funded and allowed Yassin a Leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood into Gaza just to undermine the secular Arafat who was bent on getting peace and thought he had it with Oslo only to find Oslo was a joke. Anyway Yassin’s group formed Hamas, and Hamas grew faster than Israel realized. Palestinians had seen that the PLO was riddled with questionable conduct. Israel and the US became alarmed and began arming Fatah in hopes of controlling Hamas or so they said, but any way you look at it, if they can divide Palestinains they will do it.
    So much for international law. It seems money and political power to influence the West is what is needed. International law only matters when US interests are at stake.

  3. lumpentroll
    April 16, 2014 at 9:15 pm

    As it was in Paris, Petrograd and Kiev, the only people chiming in with recommendations for what to do next about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who matter are those willing to create facts on the ground.

    The Mother of all regime change operations is about to get underway:

    Israel: Palestinians stockpiling rocks inside al-Aqsa Mosque

    Israeli security officials said on Wednesday evening that they would ultimately have to force their way into al-Aqsa mosque, atop the Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City, because hundreds of young Palestinian men are now routinely stockpiling large quantities of rocks and slabs of stone there to attack security forces.


    The Third Intafada will soon be underway.

    Israeli institute prepares priests for Jerusalem’s third temple


  4. borat
    April 17, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    There is no occupation, just territory won by Israel after beating back multiple arab armies in the ’67 war. Has the US ever returned Calif., New Mexico, Arizona, Texas to Mexico?

    When the arabs controlled Jerusalem, Jewish religious sites were routinely desecrated and hamas is arming militants to foment more violence. There was no freedom of worship or entrance to those sites before ’67.

  5. Rehmat
    April 17, 2014 at 11:28 pm

    Last week, in an open letter to John Kerry, some “Friends of Israel” asked the pro-Israel John Kerry to stop bending on his knees in front of Netanyahu and the Jewish Lobby.

    The letter was signed by Henry Seigman, former president of American Jewish Congress, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Polish national security adviser to the White House, Lee Hamilton, former Congressman and vice-Chairman of 9/11 Commission, Carla A. Hills, former senior White House official and currently Chairwoman of CFR, Thomas R. Pickering, former US ambassador to Israel, India, Jordan and Russia, and Frank Carlucci, former defense secretary and deputy director under president Ronald Reagan.

    “US disapproval of continued settlement enlargement in the Occupied Territories by Israeli government as “illegitimate” and “unhelpful” doesn’t begin to define the destructiveness of this activity. Nor does it dispel the impression that we have come to accept it despite our rhetorical objections. Halting the diplomatic process on a date certain until Israel complies with international law and previous agreements would help to stop this activity and clearly place the onus for the interruption where it belongs,” says the letter.


Comments are closed.