NYT- third intifada is inevitable

[ShaunN]

For anyone interested in international politics:

This is a really disturbing but, I fear, probably correct analysis of the current situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Essentially, it argues that peace has given nothing to the Palestinians except more Jewish settlements, more oppression, and more attacks from Jewish settlers. The argument that has won the day in Palestine is that without a threat, Israel won't make peace. Now the debate is over what kind of threat and how to implement it.

Sadly, it never had to get to this point, and the US and US politics is largely to blame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/op...itable.html?hp

[zemo]

I have always thought that the illegal settlements that various Israeli politicians have supported in exchange for political power were just an invasive war by other means. I have yet to read an account where those settlers haven't behaved themselves like new-crowned kings and pretty much treated the Palestinians as less than human. It's not Jews, and it's certainly not all Israelis, but all of them will suffer over the ambitions of a few.

I will add, though, that the role of the US is smaller than many make it out to be. US policy for the most part was simply that Israel has a right to exist and that right has to be defended. And in that they aren't the slightest bit different from a lot of European nations. It's a handfull of settlers and some Israeli hardliners that are escalating the conflict.

[Ray G.]

It was always inevitable. That's what happens when two sides have no possible final meeting point in an ongoing conflict.

[ShaunN]

I have always thought that the illegal settlements that various Israeli politicians have supported in exchange for political power were just an invasive war by other means. I have yet to read an account where those settlers haven't behaved themselves like new-crowned kings and pretty much treated the Palestinians as less than human. It's not Jews, and it's certainly not all Israelis, but all of them will suffer over the ambitions of a few.

I will add, though, that the role of the US is smaller than many make it out to be. US policy for the most part was simply that Israel has a right to exist and that right has to be defended. And in that they aren't the slightest bit different from a lot of European nations. It's a handfull of settlers and some Israeli hardliners that are escalating the conflict.

Zemo, I think that US policy is to blame for this because the US enables Israel. This is largely because of US domestic politics. But if the US ever said to Israel "get out of the Occupied Territories or there will be consequences - i.e., cuts in economic and military support, etc." - then Israel would be out of the OT. It would be hard, it would create all kinds of disruption in Israel itself, but it would happen. As it stands now, the US enables everything Israel does - there was a fascinating press conference at the State Dept a few weeks ago where a reporter raised the obvious point that the US keeps condemning Israeli settlements but does absolutely nothing to stop them. Israel does what it wants not just with impunity but with - in a practical sense - American support. There are absolutely no consequences for Israel for defying American wishes and policy.

This differentiates the US from most of the rest of the world. There are few countries in the world that don't recognize Israel's right to exist. As you say, the US position is basically the same as most other countries, including the European countries. At the same time, very few countries recognize Israel's right to settle Palestinian land, again like the US. But only the US has the kind of potential pull with Israel that can actually make a difference, and it won't use that pull. Instead, in fact, it makes it easier and easier for Israel to carry out its settlement policies. So, the lion's share of the blame for this does lie with the US which is the only real actor (other than Israel itself) that can have a dramatic impact on the situation on the ground.

Ray, I don't agree. There is a final meeting point and it has been obvious for decades - two states, side by side, with some kind of joint sovereignty over Jerusalem. (Also, a return of the Golan Heights) Unfortunately, that solution is becoming less and less likely as more and more Palestinian land disappears under Jewish settlements. I think that, even then, a two-state solution is still possible - what goes in can come out, after all, and those settlers can be removed no matter how numerous they are - but every new settlement just makes the most likely and viable solution that much more difficult and disruptive to achieve.