Two-state, one-state and an exercise in incitement
Much was made of Trumps statement that he didnt care whether peace involved two states or one state, but not enough attention was given to why it was said and what it would ultimately mean
James Zogby
Benjamin Netanyahus meeting with Donald Trump was overshadowed by dramatic events that preceded and followed their perfectly bizarre press conference.
The week began with revelations of communications between Trump campaign aides and Russian intelligence. The day after the Trump-Netanyahu joint press event was dominated by reactions to Trumps solo press conference an incoherent and, at times, paranoid affair. As a result, the Netanyahu visit escaped scrutiny.
Their press conference was, as expected, a love fest. During Netanyahus time as prime minister, he has had to deal with Democratic presidents who have pressed him to make concessions to advance peace with the Palestinians. Now he has a Republican president who he has every reason to believe sees eye to eye with him on most issues. For his part, Trump sees Netanyahu as a soulmate. The press event featured an excess of embarrassing fawning. US leaders often heap praise on Israel, committing themselves to an unbreakable bond. Trump upped the ante referring to Israel as an open democracy that has advanced the causes of human freedom, dignity, and peace and claimed that the US and Israel are two nations that cherish the value of human life.
Netanyahu repaid the compliment. He praised Trumps dealing with Islamic extremism saying youve shown great clarity and courage in confronting this challenge head on. Netanyahu also said that there is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish State than president Donald Trump.
The two then settled down to presenting their views of the future of peace in the region.
Trump insisted that he wants to make a great deal that will bring peace to the region. He was initially vague about what that would entail, but after being coaxed by Netanyahu it became clear that both leaders believe that they can convert the Arab worlds concern with Iran and ISIL into an alliance that would create a regional peace agreement. Both suggested that some Arab states are already working covertly with Israel to confront both threats. This being the case, they posited that this shared interest can be transformed into an open alliance that would make peace with Israel, on Israels terms.
This is sheer fantasy. While it is true that Arabs are concerned with both threats, that does not translate into an overt alliance with Israel over the backs of the Palestinian people. Such an arrangement has long been an Israeli dream, but it ignores, as former secretary of state John Kerry has noted, deeply felt Arab attachment to the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
As my polling clearly demonstrates, Israeli behaviour towards Palestinians has not only increased Arab antipathy towards Israel, it has also significantly eroded the Arab peoples support for the Arab Peace Initiative. Given this, it is more likely that Arab cooperation with Israel, that is perceived to undercut Palestinian rights, would more probably play into the hands of Iran and extremist movements who would use it to inflame passions against such an arrangement.
Much was made of Trumps statement that he didnt care whether peace involved two states or one state, but not enough attention was given to why it was said and what it would ultimately mean. Netanyahu has no interest in the creation of an independent Palestinian state. He has ambitions for a Greater Israel but wants to proceed gradually by taking more land, building more settlements, and discrediting and weakening moderate Palestinian leadership. While he has succeeded, to some extent, in these efforts, the Palestinian peoples aspirations for justice, freedom and self-determination have not been extinguished. Nor has Arab support for the Palestinians been diminished.
Netanyahu has so empowered the Israeli right that he has become its captive. As much as he resented Barack Obamas pressure, he was able to use it to tame the more extreme impulses of his far right coalition partners. With the election of Trump, Israels right feels that the pressure is off. Calls for immediate annexation are now heard. And the Knesset recently passed a bill legalising the theft of Palestinian owned land. Before he left for the US, Netanyahus coalition partners warned him that should he publicly commit to two states he would face a rebellion at home. In ducking the two-state formula, Trump was saving Netanyahu from his domestic foes.
For his part, Netanyahu maintained the fiction that he could accept two states but on two conditions: that Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state and would have Israel permanent security control of the land to the west of the Jordan River. The first of these two conditions would permanently disenfranchise Palestinians inside Israel. The second would leave Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem living under Israeli military rule. Both are non-starters.
This is not a two-state solution, rather it is an outcome that would merely formalise the apartheid system that currently exists.
The writer is president of theArab American Institute
