You’re absolutely right. It’s nice and annoyingly rare to read someone writing about this issue with their feet firmly placed in reality.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Mostly right, but Walt and Mearsheimer are patently conspiracy theorists (so wrong about that, although I agree that the AIPAC, like many lobbies in the US, is far too influential and often pernicious, to suggest that it is able to make US foreign policy against the inetersts of the US is absurd and relies on the old calumnous idea of the sinister, mesmeric demon Jew) and a one-state solution is unachievable in the terms you describe, so what is the point in pursuing it?

I think Walter Russell Mead gives a better account of American support for Israel than Walt and Mearsheimer:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87402/walter-russell-mead/the-new-israel-and-the-old.html

Of course you are right Dave – on points 1 – 7 at least. Personally, I think that a two state solution is the only viable one and the right of return for Palestinian refugees will need to be exercised within Palestine and accompanied by financial compensation.

The problem I have with the debate is not actually about the middle east, but the way in which so many partisans on the “Israeli side” use the same tactics when arguing about a whole range of other subjects from Darfur to Iraq and Afghanistan and to the whole subject of humanitarian interventions and international law (subjects which they often seem to not understand very well).

If you do start writing more on international issues Dave then you can count the days until someone calls you an antisemite.

That’s pretty good for a socialist!

My addition to point 8 would be to identify the peculiar geographic history of the Temple Mount (and potentially old Jerusalem too) and that this precludes attempts to secularise this particular area of land, therefore some form of territorial division is inevitable.

If division is inevitable then it potentially can be made part of the solution if we have enough imagination to do it in a way which defends all interests.

The European example shows that a seemingly endless state of conflict can be resolved, but that it requires particular creativity and a degree of exceptionalism. Europe may now be a sea of secular nations, but the Holy See is an island in the midst of it all.

My feeling is that the Lateran Treaty provides an excellent precedent for how to resolve the incoherence within the current opposition at the heart of the Israel/Palestine question.

Wow, 5 comments of agreement. I’m gobsmacked.

Very good article!

Agree with Thomas that perhaps the holy sites could be administered like the Vatican, by the representatives of the religious groups.
The idea of a “Belgian” solution is the best one I have heard, a two state solution would not deliver justice for the Palestians or security for the Israelis.
Gerald Kaufman (not a natural political bedfellow of mine) wrote a while a go that if Israel didn’t talk to Fatah, it would have to talk to Hamas, I think his point has been proven.

Just to play devil’s advocate: do we need a debate on this at all? I mean, why does it concern us?

You have a fairly standard incredibly complex interethnic conflict over land and history and stuff, of which there are dozens in the world, and a few thousand people have died over the last couple of decades, which is sad for them and their families. But a lot more people have died in other similar conflicts in the last few weeks alone (mostly in Africa), not to mention the numbers of people dying of preventible diseases every single day.

I just don’t see why Israel and Palestine should get people who have no interest or connection to the conflict so emotional. (This is rherorical – I think I understand why people get emotional about it, but I’m saying that they have no right to do so over and above a thousand other injustices in the world.)

The caveat to point seven is that Hamas call for the death of every Jew and want to destroy Israel. No constructive negotiations can take place until they drop this doctrine. And they know that. The ball is in their court. Holding talks with an organisation that has shown absolutely no sign of recognising the rights of Israelis is at best a waste of time and money.

with regard to point 7

http://blog.z-word.com/2008/08/the-northern-ireland-analogy/

Dear Mr. Osler,

How dare you write a sensible and well-reasoned piece about this conflict?! Don’t you know it contravenes article 32b) of the internationally-agreed Blogs And Legislative Legal Semantics code (B.A.L.L.S.) for conducting arguments mentioning any or all of parties involved (however tangentially)?

Of course, how you get either/both side(s) to even begin to approach the issue leaving their entrenched prejudices / supernaturalisms / etc is the biggest question of the lot – good luck with that bit!

Good article which makes some very worthy points. However, I dont agree that the ‘only’ solution is a democratic secular state. Two-states is a necessary building bloc in moving the two peoples forward to some kind of lasting peace and while it may well be far from ideal it does at least start from how things are on the ground.

What about the settlements?

Two points that I would add…

1) Israel does appear to be at least attempting to make concessions, c.f. prisoner exchanges, etc. It might help things if, for instance, when Israel do things like (sort of) restore the Gaza Strip, that Palestinian organisations don’t then start launching rockets into Israel from said territory.

2) Re: Jerusalem. I quite liked the idea that was advanced by the Geordie window-washer (”But then, what do I know?”) in the Armstong and Miller show: make the three holy cities — Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina — into self-governing city states, allowing access to those of all religions but possession by none.

DK

All very good but you gloss over the main point that I see prevents any conflict resolution: division on the Palestinian side. There’s a civil war bubbling under between Fatah and Hamas. Neither of these two groups has ever come close to suggesting they offer mature, responsible leadership. Many Palestinian people and Arabs living in Israel are having their hopes and aspirations crushed by their own representatives, many of whom are in it for the loot. Israel is only partly responsible for this situation.
Why did you gloss over this?

You have made good points and on many I agree.

The two state solution is going to fail, it is not the smart solution. It is typical of the world to think in this way and not to see it is not wise. One state where all can live in peace is the only viable solution.

Seperating people based on race is an apartheid solution, its the world sugesting something it rejected so strongly a few decades ago. Was apartheid which means seperate right then or is it wrong. Simply it still is wrong.

The world should rethink this.

Jews and Palestinians have equal claim on the land in Israel and should learn to live in peace with one another. To put the blame solely on the shoulders of Israel is not honest. Did you consider the numerous rocket atacks on Israel and its people from the Palestinian areas, i suppose it does not matter to you because it kills Jews and not Palestinians. Bus Bombings, do you feel they are right? I do not agree with all the actions taken by Israel but I applaud the fact that they are prepared to defend and protect the normal people who care nothing for war or hatred.

It is a good thing that Israel has the influence in Washington that it has because it helped prevent greater disaster and conflict. Many of the states around Israel have been hostile from the very rebirth of the Jewish state. The Jewish right to the land has been ignored by radical and hotblooded govermnents who wish for total muslim power in the region.

The Jews have thus far been the most tolerant and democratically minded people in the region and have done what has been needed to survive. What can you tell us about Palestinians living in Israel, are they without rights, please get your facts straight on this and no sidestepping to make Israel seem like some monster it is not.

Yes Israel has its faults and mistakes have been made but people have the right to defend themselves against evil and when a thug who desires to murder innocent people dies then it is a good thing and sad that that man or woman made suich a horendous error.

Hopefully peace will come soon, that is if people soften their harts and become humble. Pride prevents this from happening.

I believe peace is possible if people discard violence as a solution and this includes both Israel and the Palestinians