MERIP
Middle East Research and Information Project
Middle East Report
Middle East Report Online
Newspaper Op-Eds

MiddleEastDesk.org
Press Room
Background

Contact Info
Subscribe
Back Issues
Internships
Giving
Search
Subscribe Online to
Middle East Report

Order a subscription and back issues to the award-winning magazine Middle East Report.

Click here for the order page.


SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS

Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Click here (PDF)

[Click here for HTML version]

 

 

 

The Conflict After Israel's Elections

Joel Beinin

San Diego Union-Tribune (3/27/06)

No matter how Israelis vote tomorrow, they will likely be voting for a future of insecurity and conflict. The three major political parties – the right-wing Likud, the “centrist” Kadima and the so-called left-wing Labor – have not offered them a genuine peace option.

Despite the talk of possible Israeli withdrawals from parts of the West Bank, a new consensus has emerged among these parties that East Jerusalem and Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank should be annexed to Israel. This would violate international law, destroy the possibility of a viable Palestinian state and condemn the Middle East to ongoing strife.

All the public opinion polls suggest that the next prime minister will be the current acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert. He will continue the direction set by Ariel Sharon, who remains a substantial political presence despite being disabled by a coma since January. Building on the redeployment from the Gaza Strip last year, Olmert has proposed further unilateral measures to determine borders with the Palestinians by 2010.

The borders he envisions would roughly follow the separation barrier Israel continues to construct in the West Bank despite the 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice that the structure is illegal and must be dismantled. The Jordan River will be Israel's “security boundary” in the east. It is unclear how much of the West Bank would be annexed; estimates run from 30 percent to 58 percent.

The Palestinians will be permitted to call the barely contiguous and economically unviable territories Israel leaves to them a “state.” However, this entity will have few of the attributes normally associated with sovereign states.

Olmert's recent campaign speeches have sought to mollify the vast majority of settlers who reside on lands he intends to annex. He has authorized construction of a police headquarters in the corridor linking Jerusalem to Ma'ale Adumim, a city of 30,000 about five miles to the east of Jerusalem, and has promised to construct 3,500 housing units in this corridor. This would effectively annex Ma'ale Adumim to Israel and surround East Jerusalem with Israeli-controlled territory.

The West Bank would be split in half, making a contiguous Palestinian state all but impossible. In a campaign speech at Ariel, a small city of 20,000 deep inside the West Bank, Olmert proclaimed, “The entire Ariel bloc is an integral part of the state of Israel and will remain so forever.”

The next day Israeli forces raided a Palestinian prison at Jericho on the grounds that the British and American monitors who supervised the incarceration of Palestinians accused of assassinating former ultra-hawkish minister Rehavam Ze'evi were withdrawn. The prison raid aggravated Israel's already poor relations with President Mahmoud Abbas and all the other Palestinian political forces.

It was more an act of revenge than a contribution to Israeli security. But it enhanced Olmert's domestic political standing. A public opinion poll released after the prison operation showed that Kadima would win 42 seats in Israel's parliament, the Knesset, an increase of five over the previous week.

The prison raid is a concrete expression of the slogan developed by Sharon and his advisers in 2000: “To return territory and kill Arabs.” That is to say, the Israeli public likes leaders who show diplomatic moderation and military toughness. Olmert appears likely to follow this dictum.

The Israeli public sees a vote for Kadima as a vote for separation – a chance to be rid of the Palestinians once and for all. Israel may be able to impose its expanded borders unilaterally, just as it has imposed its 39-year military occupation of the Palestinians. But the cost will be chronic insecurity. These borders and this separation will be at the expense of the Palestinian people who show no sign of abandoning their homes and lands and forgoing their national aspirations to suit Israel.

The Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that Israel's “primary goal” after the elections will be to persuade the United States to agree to Israel's permanent takeover of the three largest settlement blocs – Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion – in exchange for a unilateral withdrawal from outlying settlements.

The Bush administration and Congress would do all Israelis a favor by signaling now their firm rejection of this request. No Palestinian leader can agree to the map of the region that Israeli politicians are presenting their constituents. As Hanan Ashrawi, one of the most moderate Palestinian political figures, said, “Israel has to be put into touch with reality: that there are Palestinians; that there is international law. Unilateralism leads only to further conflict, violence and extremism.”

--

Beinin is professor of Middle East history at Stanford University, an editor of Middle East Report and co-editor (with Rebecca Stein) of The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005.

DonateNow

Search MERIP

MERIP OP-EDS
Want to Fight Terrorism? Think Globally, Act Locally
Globe and Mail (Toronto),
August 4, 2008
Khalid Mustafa Medani

Militant Islam is under global scrutiny for clues to conditions that foster its rise, and to strategies for reversing that growth. But the key is not in Islamic doctrine, US foreign policy or formal ties to various nations, as many analysts have asserted. It lies at the community level, with clan and local leaders. Full Story>>


Iraq’s Kurds Have to Choose
Globe and Mail (Toronto)
July 30, 2008
Joost Hiltermann

Kurdish parties have become kingmakers in Baghdad , and they know it. As no federal government can work without them, they are pulling every available political lever to expand the territory and resources they control, trying to build the foundation of an independent Kurdish state. But even more than territory, they need security. If everyone acts quickly and wisely, that understanding could help resolve one of the Iraq war’s thorniest issues. Full Story>>


Exiting Iraq Is Easier Than They Say
The Nation (web-only)
July 16, 2008
Chris Toensing

The debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters cry “Havoc!” True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable, adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he, like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain that withdrawal is simply “cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full Story>>


Presidential Pandering on Palestine
Asheville Citizen-Times
July 4, 2008
Bayann Hamid

At the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) earlier this month, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama competed over who would become the “candidate for Israel.” The match came to a draw when both candidates pledged undying and unconditional support for Israel. While their support for “Israel right or wrong” was unquestionable, at the end of all the commotion, the most pertinent question for Americans and the world remained unasked and unanswered: Who is the candidate for peace? Full Story>>


The Next President's Iran Dilemma
In These Times
February 6, 2008
Chris Toensing

Quick: Who is the strategic victor, to date, of the war in Iraq? Nearly everyone outside the Bush administration (and perhaps some within it) would answer: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The catastrophe of the U.S. occupation of Iraq has bolstered the clerical regime in Tehran, while souring ordinary Iranians on the prospect of U.S.-delivered “democracy.” The occupation has done so by emplacing Iranian-backed Shiite Islamists in power in Baghdad and cooling the jets of those in Washington hoping to “shock and awe” Iran's mullahs. Full Story>>


Libya's Fat Cat
The Topeka Capital-Journal
January 11, 2008
Chris Toensing

Few dictators in the world are sitting prettier in 2008 than Col. Muammar Qaddafi of Libya. In a region full of potentates and presidents-for-life, his reign is supreme. Having seized power in a 1969 coup, he has ruled his country for longer than any other Arab head of state. And now, as wintry January begins, the colonel has quietly completed his journey back in from the cold. Full Story>>

  Home | Contact/Intern | Background Info | Middle East Report | MER Online | Newspaper Op-Eds | Giving

Copyright © MERIP. All rights reserved.