In the aftermath of Trump’s disastrous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the spin from Washington and Riyadh–and the journalists and think tank analysts only too eager be spun–has been outrageous. The level of sheer delusion is stupendous. This post will offer an anatomy of delusion and why it means only more suffering and bloodshed for both Arabs and Israelis.
The Times Shills for the Two-State Delusion
The NY Times, ever the newspaper of record for the élite and their paid emissaries, purports to debate whether the two-state solution remains viable in light of Trump’s seeming endorsement of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Who does Mark Landler quote as sources? Why, think tank talking heads who earn their keep from the Israel Lobby and its donors. Landler quotes no less than four sources affiliated with Lobby, all of whom endorse a two-state solution. And none of whom have ever offered any serious analysis or balanced discussion of the one-state solution: Martin Indyk, David Makovsky, Scott Anderson, and Daniel Levy.
How many Palestinian or Arab sources does he quote? One, Saeb Erekat. And he doesn’t quote anything original from Erekat. He merely quotes statements the Palestinian made to other media outlets. He begins with Erekat saying:
…Erekat…a steadfast advocate for a Palestinian state, said in an interview on Thursday that Mr. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel “have managed to destroy that hope.” He embraced a radical shift in the P.L.O.’s goals — to a single state, but with Palestinians enjoying the same civil rights as Israelis, including the vote.
“They’ve left us with no option,” he said. “This is the reality. We live here. Our struggle should focus on one thing: equal rights.”
Once Landler lays this out, he must debunk it immediately. And he does:
Mr. Erekat’s change of heart is unlikely to change Palestinian policy. The dream of a Palestinian state is too deeply ingrained in a generation of its leaders for the Palestinian Authority to abandon it now. Israel would be unlikely to accede to equal rights, because granting a vote to millions of Palestinians would eventually lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Who is a NY TImes reporter who knows little about what Palestinians believe, to say that a two-state solution is “too deeply ingrained” to be abandoned? And note who he points to as the arbiters of what Palestinians accept or believe? “Leaders,” by whom he means the doddering old kleptocratic octogenarians who have sold out the Palestinian cause for decades. Landler makes no attempt to reach out to Palestinian activists or academics or indigenous NGOs who know much better what the Palestinian street is thinking. Does Landler think that only leaders matter? Does he think leaders this corrupt and out of touch can merely wave a magic wand and four million Palestinians will follow them like the Pied Piper of Hamelin?
Further, why would Israel’s objections to “equal rights” and a one-state solution be a reason this doesn’t become the eventual resolution of the issue? Why do we assume that Israel will always be calling the shots? Did Serbia call the shots regarding Kosovo or Bosnia after NATO intervened? Why does the resistance of a nation which threatens to take the entire region to the brink of Armageddon become an immovable obstacle? The sheer chutzpah of such an assumption is enormous.
Later, the article offers the administration’s rebuttal of the Palestinian perspective on Trump’s proclamation:
Administration officials strenuously reject the argument that Mr. Trump has foreclosed a two-state solution…He studiously avoided taking a position on the eventual borders or sovereignty of Jerusalem.
That is either an ignorant or disingenuous statement. When you recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem (not over “west Jerusalem,” as Trump could have said) and you omit any reference to Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, then you’ve taken a crystal clear position on borders and sovereignty. You’ve said Israel has sovereignty and the Palestinians don’t. If you believe otherwise, you’re a fool or a villain (or both).
Then Landler chimes in with an affirmation of Trump’s claims of even-handedness:
Beyond the president’s words, there were other signs he is serious about his intentions. On the same day that he signed his name with a John Hancock-like flourish to a proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, he quietly signed another document that will delay the move of the American Embassy to the city for at least six months — and probably much longer.
How does Trump’s recognition that he can’t immediately move the embassy for a thousand logistical reasons equate to Trump being “serious in his intentions” to be fair and balanced in weighing the claims of Palestinians? Should Palestinians view the delay in moving the embassy as a gift to them? Something that has any real benefit or meaning to them?
At this point, Landler gives voice to his first pro-Israel talking head, Martin Indyk, who makes this blindingly astute observation:
“Avoiding a move of the embassy is a way of avoiding geographic definition,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel. “Avoiding any geographic definition of their recognition of Jerusalem looks like their effort to keep the peace process alive.”
It’s hardly much of an affirmation by Indyk of Trump’s peace process. But he does seem to believe that by not moving the embassy, the U.S. believes it’s offered the Palestinians something. When of course, it’s nothing and will have no value to any Palestinian.
Landler’s coup de grâce in terms of marshalling pro-Israel analysts is David Makovsky. And his comments have to be read to be believed:
…Some longtime Middle East observers said Mr. Erekat’s talk of a one-state solution reflected anger rather than a watershed change in the Palestinian position. Given Israel’s probable rejection of equal rights, American and Israeli supporters of a two-state solution said that option, for all intents and purposes, remained the only game in town.
“I don’t want to minimize the hurt the Palestinians feel,” said David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “But there was a duality to Trump’s message that has gotten lost.”
Mr. Trump, he said, was not closing the door to negotiations on borders and sovereignty. “Both parts should be heard,” he said. While he questioned the timing of the move, he said the Palestinians could return to the table when tempers cool.
“Right now their anger is such that they probably can’t hear this,” Mr. Makovsky said. “But if he presents a plan in the first quarter, are you not going to want to hear what it is? The Palestinians still think Trump’s enough of a bulldozer that if he gave something to the Israelis on a Wednesday, he’s capable of giving something to the Palestinians on a Thursday.”
It’s quite amazing that a pro-Israel shill like Makovsky who knows the two-state solution is dead and knows that no one in power in Israel or the U.S. believes in it, can still sell a journalist like Landler a bill of goods. And note that Landler only quotes analysts who support a two-state solution and a PLO official who also has supported it till now. There are no sources here offering an alternative point of view. None. Which means this article is journalism in bad faith, whether the reporters who compiled it were aware of this bias or not.
Note that the strongest adjective Makovsky can muster to describe Palestinians emotions is “hurt.” No, hurt is when you skin your knee or sprain your pinkie. What Trump did to Palestinians is more like a shot to the gut; a paralyzing blow that deprives them of any hope and drives them into the arms of radical extremists.
I also like Makovsky’s assurance that Palestinians will return to talks once their hot-headed tempers cool down. Those pesky Palestinians always let their tribal emotions get the better of them. If they could only realize they have no choice. That what Trump offers is as good as they’re going to get. Then they’d get down to business.
The sheer ignorance of Makovsky assuming that the Palestinians will have natural curiosity about Trump’s offer and want to come back to the table to hear it is amazing. Why would Palestinians care what Trump offered them? Why would they attribute any value to it given his current and past statements? And just what does Makovsky believe Trump is going to give the Palestinians on that proverbial Thursday?
Finally, Landler ends his piece quoting the “liberal” pundit of the bunch, the guy the reporter probably feels covers his bases on the left, Daniel Levy. The only problem is that Levy isn’t “on the left.” He’s a liberal Zionist, neither progressive or leftist. And Levy too supports a two state solution. So where is the diversity of opinion this subject demands?
“It’s hard to see how you can go down that route without at some stage divesting yourself of a semblance of a self-governing authority,” said Daniel Levy, the London-based president of the U.S./Middle East Project. “You’ve got to call time on the Palestinian Authority, which never became a state.”
Instead, Mr. Levy said he believed that the peace process, and the Palestinians, were in a “transitional period,” in which the two-state solution had failed for now. But he added, “what people have done can be undone.”
Got that? Two states are dead “for now.” But not forever. That should give Palestinians hope that at some point in the vague future we men of good faith can revive it; or rather pull it out of the dustheap of failed Middle East plans, dust it off, and pretend it’s as good as new.
And what does Levy mean “what’s done can be undone?” How do you undo the death of thousands? How do you undo fierce rage against a sociopathic American president and his narcissistic Saudi and Israeli buddies who believe they can put the Palestinians on ice and ignore their legitimate claims to land, rights and nation?
The Saudi Delusion
Speaking of the Saudis, this Reuters story conveys the views of the ruling Crown Prince on these matters. If anything, they’re even more delusional than Trump or Netanyahu’s views. Before I offer a sampling, it’s worth hearing about the plan Trump is offering (and which the Saudis are endorsing):
As told to Abbas, the proposal included establishing “a Palestinian entity” in Gaza as well as the West Bank administrative areas A and B and 10 percent of area C, which contains Jewish settlements, a third Palestinian official said.
Jewish settlements in the West Bank would stay, there would be no right of return, and Israel would remain responsible for the borders, he said.
The proposal appears to differ little from existing arrangements in the West Bank, widening Palestinian control but falling far short of their minimum national demands.
A Palestinian entity. Not even a state. And even if someone wanted to call it a state, it wouldn’t be. It would be a bantustan of Palestinian villages surrounded by massive Israeli settlements. If the proposal essentially ratifies a rotten status quo, why would any Palestinian be willing to accept it?
Here is the real zinger, displaying the absolute cluelessness of the Saudis involved with this charade:
A Saudi source said he believed an understanding on Israeli-Palestinian peace would nonetheless begin to emerge in the coming weeks.
“Do not underestimate the businessman in (Trump). He has always called it the ultimate deal,” the source said, declining to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.
“I don’t think our government is going to accept that unless it has something sweetened in the pipeline which (King Salman and the crown prince) could sell to the Arab world – that the Palestinians would have their own state.”
In other words, because Trump offers some blather about an ultimate deal, but refuses to offer the Palestinians any details other than assure them it would be “something they would like,” then we’re to assume that it would be “sweet” enough for MbS to sell (the Saudi’s apt words, not mine) to the Palestinians. I don’t know who’s worse, Trump or MbS. It’s worse than the blind leading the blind. It’s the deaf, dumb, and blind leading the deaf, dumb and blind.
The Reuters article too suffers from a surfeit of sources who cynically ratify the status quo and the consensus as defined by the Middle East and Beltway elites:
Most Arab states are unlikely to object to Trump’s announcement because they find themselves more aligned with Israel than ever, particularly on countering Iran, said Shadi Hamid, senior fellow at Brookings Institution in Washington,
“If Saudi officials, including the crown prince himself, were particularly concerned with Jerusalem’s status, they would presumably have used their privileged status as a top Trump ally and lobbied the administration to hold off on such a needlessly toxic move,” he wrote in an article published in The Atlantic.
“It’s unlikely Trump would have followed through if the Saudis had drawn something resembling a red line.”
Even if this is true (and it very possibly is), why doesn’t anyone bother to say the obvious: that if the Saudis wish to betray the Palestinians and abandon their role as guardians of the region’s Muslim holy places (including Jerusalem), they themselves will be abandoned by the Arab and Muslim world. Why do the eminences grise think that the Saudis can act in any way they choose without paying any consequences in terms of regional influence?
In truth, the Saudis will make themselves irrelevant if they force this deal down the Palestinians throat. They will force those Palestinians who reject it to turn to Iran and its Shiite allies like Hezbollah. They will turn Hamas into leaders of the Palestinian resistance after the PA has abandoned its responsibility to defend Palestinian rights. Even those Sunni states like Jordan or Egypt who might feel compelled to go along with the Saudi plan, will do so with tepid enthusiasm. And at the first sign of failure, they will bolt from the stables like horses staring at a forest fire. Leaving MbS alone with his buddies, Trump and Netanyahu (who by then may be long gone as prime minister–perhaps even behind bars).
Saudi Arabia, the next domino to fall to the Iranian juggernaut.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/middle-east-war-iran-allies-194030866.html
@ Zionauts: I’ve given you many warnings and you’ve ignored them all. This is off-topic. The next time you violate the comment rules in any way you may be banned. I’m damn tired to having to make these warnings & have better things to do with my time.
Just by the by, the Saudis have only themselves to blame. When you become the aggressors and destroy another country the inhabitants tend not to take it too well and seek revenge. Especially when you are of one Muslim sect and you’re murdering women & children of another sect you hate.
Similar circumstances in Israel.
Everyone, I have a feeling Zionauts is not long for this world. So wish him well while he’s still around. His flight is about to land at Ben Gurion.
I am on point, as usual. A Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is not a Saudi priority right now because the Saudis are surrounded by Iran and her proxy armies, and Iranian and Hezbollah missiles are being continually fired at Saudi Arabia by Iranian backed Houti rebels in Yemen.
Pushing Iran out of the Arab world is the number one Saudi priority. If the Saudis thought that Jerusalem was the key to stopping Iran from encroaching into the Arab heartland, than the Saudis would be begging the parties come to the peace table, but, the Saudis know better.
And why on earth would the Palestinian leadership make a peace deal now when they don’t even know who will prevail in this Saudi-Iranian face-off. The juggernaut is gaining speed, not slowing down.
Right now, the smart money is on Iran.
@ Zionauts:
You’re an annoying chutzpan, as usual. Nor are you “on point.” Ever.
Really? Surrounded? How do you figure? A U.S. Navy fleet in ally Bahrain. U.S. ships & jets patrolling the Persian Gulf to encircle Iran. Friendly Gulf states next door and fellow Sunni states throughout the region. Where are they surrounded? Oh, you mean the starving Houthi army in the battered state of Yemen? And you mean the few Shiites activists in Bahrain who oppose the Sunni minority king imposed on them by the House of Saud? And you call these a “proxy army?” Really? More like a militia, if that. Get real. Saudi Arabia is no more surrounded by armies than Seattle is surrounded by rivers of fire.
You are very good at regurgitating hasbara. Usually hasbara buttressed by little or no facts. There has been an accusation supported with no evidence that SOME Hezbollah engineers have helped with the firing of the missiles. And that makes them “Hezbollah missiles?” As for Iranian? Possible, but again not fully proven. And claimed is not the same as proven. But what’s missing is the outrageous war crime by the Saudis against Yemen which precipitated these missile attacks. Curious why you neglected the precipitating act?
That’d be a nice trick if they could do it. But they can’t & won’t. And that another reason the Saudi policy, such as it is, is doomed to abject failure. Iran has as much a right to pursue its interests in the region as Saudi does. If the Saudis constrain themselves the Iranians would do the same. IF they don’t, the Iranians won’t. Just that simple.
“if the Saudis wish to betray the Palestinians and abandon their role as guardians of the region’s Muslim holy places”. This is ambiguous: it seems to imply that the Saudis are the guardians of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. Not so, they are guardians of Medina and Mecca: historically the Palestinians have been regarded as guardians of the Holy Places in Palestine – see the book “Remembering and Imagining Palestine”.
There was never any possibility that partition of the land would solve the conflict. The intention of the Mandate was to produce an independent State of Palestine which would be the “common home” of “two nations”, Jewish and Arab, with “perfect equality” between them, in the words of the 1921 Carlsbad Resolution of the World Zionist Congress. The present situation is that both the States of Israel and Palestine exist as legal entities. Neither is going to allow itself to be absorbed by the other. A one-state solution can only come about by a union of the two existing states, and to be acceptable to both peoples it must be a union in which each preserves its national life and identity – see “The One-State-Two-Nations Proposal” for ideas on how that might work in practice.
“historically the Palestinians have been regarded as guardians of the Holy Places in Palestine ”
not exactly. specific Arab families passed down the upkeep and not guardians as in the military sense.
there was never a central government nor a{P} Falastinian army as they were ruled by the Ottomans from the 15-16th century until about 100 years ago when the European countries divided it up.
Marty: caretakers, guardians, protectors – all mean the same thing, more or less. According to the book I mentioned, their role as guardians of the Holy Places played an important part in the development of a distinct Palestinian national identity.
“There was never a central Palestinian government”: correct, but that is not relevant to Richard’s post.
The Trump move, even if delayed or even just verbal, may be a wake-up call to those Palestinians and Arabs, Muslims, that understand that they are in the process of losing Jerusalem, even a shared Jerusalem. The two-state solution was and is fantasy given Israel’s hegemony, might, hold over the US.It’s harder now to get people to seriously believe that we are honest brokers if we ever were, but there are those…
We were not; it was sold that we were. Which is why there was never a deal. What was offered never served justice EVEN after Palestinian acquiescences over time to less and less and obvious acceptance of Israel.The Israeli-US goal seems to be, or was in essence, playing for time as Israel settled and claimed more land that was to be a Palestinians state. Each protestation, intifada, violent, non-violent, only sealed the opinion amongst enough folks internally and abroad here in the US that Palestinians are restive, terrorists, rejectionists, want it all, and don’t deserve a state.
And so time goes by and Israeli’s buy this, the peace movement implodes, and they sell it to their supporters. The goal: to get quiet and normality as they spread out to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, make two states impossible. The wall and the “operations” (“mowing the lawn” periodically) serves this purpose too. It’s “necessary” this military occupation. It justifies occupation for 50 years.
Palestinians,if so abandoned by the Arabs, may turn more to real terrorist tactics as opposed to mere resistance ( including the non-violent sort) in their desperation.
Or will they give up? I don’t know. But this latest brings more reality home to them, a depressing reality if one believed the fantasy. . Or so one would think. They have lost so many to this struggle. We will see.
I want to see the uprisings. I don’t like what Israel has become, not good, not sustainable. for Israel, not a healthy state of being with this original sin magnified many times over.
Future Israeli generations might ask, as we might well here now in the US, “how did we let this happen to us”?
‘The end of Israel as a Jewish state.’
This is what comes of conquering your neighbors. They become your subjects, and subjects become citizens. Israel chose this fate.
Can’t understand the delusion of the far left which refuses to see this as a major Muslim issue. Why is this important? B/c it means many Muslims will never accept Israel with Jerusalem as its capital. Not much to do with Palestinians but rather a religious principle.
How else can one explain the reaction of Muslim countries on the other side of the globe? https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/1.4675922
All these countries with terrible record of human rights become light-to-the-nations all of the sudden. Does anyone buy it?
Human rights? Even as it pertains to Israel as well? Muslims have a right to access and jurisdiction or sovereignty of their holy sight/s. If they don’t accept Israel’s sovereignty of the whole of Jerusalem,that’s defensible. Jewish claims of all of Jerusalem as it’s capitol is what is being intimated or said. The reaction to the latest Trump announcement is an indication of the sensitivity of this issue and that Muslims everywhere are not going to just roll over… nor would Jews or Christians if Muslims claimed all of Jerusalem.
@ Ginger: You prove the concept that a tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. There are many issues here more than just a religious one. There are political ones too, such as Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. By recognizing this, Trump & Bibi have opened a can of poisonous worms. THEY are the ones who’ve brought the religious issues forward because they knew that offering Jews sovereignty over Jerusalem and its holy places is precisely the sort of thing which would cause this explosion.
If the U.S. had offered Jordan sovereignty over Jerusalem and control of the Kotel, the Jewish Diaspora would’ve reacted almost the same way. Not to mention all the lunatic Israeli settlers who would’ve started killing Jordanians right & left.
Yours was an Islamophobic comment. That violates my comment rules & I won’t permit any more from you.
‘Mr. Erekat’s change of heart is unlikely to change Palestinian policy. The dream of a Palestinian state is too deeply ingrained in a generation of its leaders for the Palestinian Authority to abandon it now. Israel would be unlikely to accede to equal rights, because granting a vote to millions of Palestinians would eventually lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state.’
Why don’t we change a few words in the last sentence?
‘ South Africa would be unlikely to accede to equal rights, because granting a vote to millions of Black Africans would eventually lead to the end of South Africa as a White state.’
Now I think I understand