Posted By Steve White Friday, August 5, 2011 - 10:17 AM Share
After
serving nearly six years as the special advisor to the United States Security
Coordinator (USSC) for Israel
and the Palestinian
Territories, I came home
convinced of one thing, cognizant of another. The first was that a peaceful
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not only in the vital
security interests of Israel
and the future state of Palestine, but also the United States.
The second, initially noted two years ago by a former IDF Chief of Staff, was
that, "The USSC, the IDF and the Palestinian Security Services were buying
time, time for the politicians.... [A]nd they're wasting it." As we approach the United
Nations General Assembly session in September, the first conviction remains
immutable, while sadly, the reality of the general's observation appears not to
have changed in the slightest.
T.
E. Lawrence wrote in the aftermath of the First World War, "...[W]hen we
achieved, and the new world dawned, the old men came out again and took our
victory to re-make in the likeness of the former world they knew... We stammered
that we had worked for a new heaven and a new earth, and they thanked us
kindly, and made their peace."
It
is ironic then that nearly a century later, both a Palestinian and an Israeli
security professional would note something similar by asking me why Congress
was threatening to abandon them in wake of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee's recent
hearing, "Promoting Peace, Reexamining U.S. Aid to the Palestinian
Authority." My Palestinian friend wrote, "Look what we did for
ourselves -- with your help. Compare that to Iraqis and Afghans where you've
had to do it for them. Don't they
understand the potential magnitude of our work?"
My
Israeli friend intoned: "Your Congress professes concern for our security needs
and then threatens to undermine it without realizing it. Our security cooperation
with the Palestinians is worth infinitely more than another missile or airplane
package and is all the more vital at a time when the time honored political
process is stuck. [The Palestinian Security Forces] have become true
professionals, not for you and certainly not for us. That is why we trust them
now, they are acting in their interests for their future. Tell your Congress to
finish what you have started. Threats to cut aid! What are these people
thinking?"
Great
progress has been achieved on the ground, often at great sacrifice by the
security organizations on both sides. Yet the "old men" are on the verge of
taking the victory achieved by courageous Palestinian and Israeli security men
and women, and remaking it in the likeness of the former world they knew. Is
there truly no way out of this stalemate?
Let's
consider this path forward: The first step is a realization in the United States that Israel's
security, while clearly tied in a strategic sense to Washington, will in the final analysis best be worked out on the
ground with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli
defense establishment clearly understands this as it continues to quietly
deepen its coordination with a professionalizing Palestinian security
establishment. This nascent cooperation has been facilitated by the office of
the USSC, with participation by Canada,
the UK, a variety of
European countries, and Turkey.
The result is a security situation in the Palestinian territories that is
unprecedented, where Israeli Defense Force commanders suffer more attacks from
radical Israeli settlers than Palestinian "terrorists." In the
aftermath of the second Intifada, the currency and miracle of this dynamic is
made a reality today via the daily actions of those who do not predicate their
actions on promotions, election outcomes or potential future political
appointments, but rather on the long term interests of the peoples they serve
and protect. Their selfless service has created the true basic foundations that
enabled the renewal of a negotiations process, and underlay the facilitation of
Palestinian economic and civil governance progress.
Renewed
security cooperation has been the enabler, not a retardant, through the renewal
of Palestinian Israeli security coordination -- and a modicum of U.S. aid -- combined with the presence of a
trusted senior U.S.
military coordinator. Now is not the time to throw the security "baby" out with
the "political" bath water. It is time
to recognize the value of the hard-won endeavors of the past five years,
preserve the accomplishments, and then act in a worthy political manner.
Through
the dedicated efforts of the Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Canadians,
British, and others on the ground, we have approached "victory" of the sort
described by Lawrence
90 plus years prior. We have worked for a "new heaven and new earth," and the
progress is remarkable. But the "old men" are there, whether they are
backward-looking Islamist rejectionists, backward-looking Israeli settler
zealots, or well-intentioned but ill-informed members of the U.S. political establishment. And
the danger of remaking our success into "the likeness of the former world they
knew" is very real. Unless...
Steve White is a Washington-based
independent consultant currently writing the history of the United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
The only viable alternative is to enfranchise everyone between river and sea, and let them sort out the rest of the details on the floor of the Knesset
While we're at it, let's enfranchise all the Pakistanis and Indians with one vote, from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka.
Never mind that you're splicing two nations together who have distinct cultures, histories, traditions, and national aspirations.
There's a reason different nations exist. The only people who reject that in Palestine are those who refuse to accept that the refugee problem must be settled in Palestine and not Israel.
I.E., bigots who want Israel as a nation to die - something that 3,000 years and many Hitlers could not achieve
Keep trying though, so you can show everyone your poor understanding of ethnoscapes and international relations.
I agree that the one-state solution will not work in the long run. There is just too much baggage on both sides to just set aside and come together become one nation. Also, Palestinian refugees will have to accept land in the newly created Palestinian state in exchange for giving up the right of return.
Unfortunately, AEL is right in that the window for the two-state solution is closing and the default solution is the one-state solution if nothing is done. The time for urgency is now, but the prospects for a deal seem very small. Bibi is more interested in keeping his coalition together than peruse peace. Israel has the most to gain from a two-state solution if it wants to remain a Jewish democratic state. Israel's real friends know that the two-state is the only viable solution.
White confuses the tree with the forest. It's great that the Palestinian security forces have become professional and brought an unquestionable level of security, which itself has led to more prosperity. But he is not congruent with his own logic. The old men he rightly denounces are the old fanatics and terminally corrupt leaders of Hamas and Fatah. As long as no progress is done on the political front, even the most professional security forces will not bring peace (short of seizing power themselves and throwing out the bums, à la Ataturk - now there's an idea...). As for the settlers, the easiest solution to get rid of them would have been for the Palestinians since 1967 to recognize Israel and make peace. But the fact that they still refuse to do so to this day betrays their real intentions: they don't want a peace that would cut short their ultimate goal of taking over all of Israel. And as long as a political solution based on genuine mutual recognition has not been found, the Palestinian security forces remain a potential danger for the IDF. They may have worked with them for years, but they can also turn on them in seconds. I don't expect White's book to highlight these aspects since for him it seems clear that the settlers are the source of all problems. Another blind ideologue who doesn't want to bother with facts. No, thank you.
Anything who knows anything about T.E would KNOW he was a staunch Arabist. But at the same time, he was an imperialist. He said in his diaries he never accept the kind of culture and habits the nomadic Arabs embrace even though he lived among them in native Britain.
As far as Israel goes, the security situation is a sham. The US has poured billions into the Palestinian Security forces, but there is no accountability. Just yesterday a Palestinian journalist was imprisoned for criticizing the ruling "moderate" Palestinian government.
Now if Israel were to arrest a journalist it would be all over the news, but when the Palestinians do it, silence! Israel is slowly being replaced by the US in the West Bank, but when things go bad Israel will be blamed.
And let's not forget about Gaza. the PNA continues to send US aid to their brothers in Gaza, paying Hamas salaries and keeping them alive.
US can't play both sides and then pretend to be a peace-maker. In the end the US will do what it always had done, throw Israel under the bus to amend ties with the Muslim world. Clinton did it after Bosnia. Bush 1 did it after the Gulf War. Bush 2 did it after the Iraq War. Obama will do it after Libya/Afghanistan.
This is why we pay Israel...it is our little scapegoat.
. . this perspective excludes the far stronger forces of Hamas and Hizbollah reduces it to irrelevance. When push comes to shove, this Quisling force will be obliterated.
The conflict isn't, and never was, territorial: It is, and always was, existential. For the Arabs, no Israel can exist within any borders.
The simple fact is that the would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:
The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.
They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).
They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).
They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that's exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).
They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:
A. No peace with Israel
B. No recognition of Israel
C. No negotiations with Israel
They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.
And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.
And even afterwards, Ehud Olmert made his subsequent generous offer that went far beyond even that of Barak. The would-have-been "Palestinians" rejected it.
They had many chances.
They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list.
Oh well. That’s their choice. Game over for them. They won’t have a state here.
But we will have peace and stability here- with or without the Arabs remaining. It's up to them.
uh? over 3 million whites fled south africa after the apartheid fell, taking their money and assets with them.
south africa is a cesspool - life expectancy 50, 30% of the country has aids, 1# in homicides on the planet...about 18,000 dead a year for a population of 40 million.
The solution is obvious and easy. Remove American Money from the equation. Peace will be made in days if Israel doesn't get the money from Washington to build settlements or buy unlimited weapons.
Read More
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE