Why a “Palestinian Sate” has never happened and never will

by Infidelesto on May 19, 2009 · Comments

Carl in Jerusalem (my go to guy for Israeli news) links to an interesting article from Stratfor that’s well worth the read.  There’s an interesting part that Carl highlights that I thought would give some insight as to why a Palestinian state has never happened and never will, and it has a lot to do with the Arab states surrounding Israel.

The foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for years has been the assumption that there would be a two-state solution. Such a solution has not materialized for a host of reasons.

  1. At present there are two Palestinian entities, Gaza and the West Bank, which are hostile to each other. 
  2. The geography and economy of any Palestinian state would be so reliant on Israel that independence would be meaningless; geography simply makes the two-state proposal almost impossible to implement. 
  3. No Palestinian government would have the power to guarantee that rogue elements would not launch rockets at Israel, potentially striking at the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, Israel’s heartland. 
  4. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have the domestic political coherence to allow any negotiator to operate from a position of confidence. Whatever the two sides negotiated would be revised and destroyed by their political opponents, and even their friends.

For this reason, the entire peace process — including the two-state solution — is a chimera. Neither side can live with what the other can offer. But if it is a fiction, it is a fiction that serves U.S. purposes. The United States has interests that go well beyond Israeli interests and sometimes go in a different direction altogether. Like Israel, the United States understands that one of the major obstacles to any serious evolution toward a two-state solution is Arab hostility to such an outcome.

The Jordanians have feared and loathed Fatah in the West Bank ever since the Black September uprisings of 1970. The ruling Hashemites are ethnically different from the Palestinians (who constitute an overwhelming majority of the Jordanian population), and they fear that a Palestinian state under Fatah would threaten the Jordanian monarchy. For their part, the Egyptians see Hamas as a descendent of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks the Mubarak government’s ouster — meaning Cairo would hate to see a Hamas-led state. Meanwhile, the Saudis and the other Arab states do not wish to see a radical altering of the status quo, which would likely come about with the rise of a Palestinian polity.

At the same time, whatever the basic strategic interests of the Arab regimes, all pay lip service to the principle of Palestinian statehood. This is hardly a unique situation. States frequently claim to favor various things they actually are either indifferent to or have no intention of doing anything about. Complicating matters for the Arab states is the fact that they have substantial populations that do care about the fate of the Palestinians. These states thus are caught between public passion on behalf of Palestinians and the regimes’ interests that are threatened by the Palestinian cause. The states’ challenge, accordingly, is to appear to be doing something on behalf of the Palestinians while in fact doing nothing. 

The United States has a vested interest in the preservation of these states. The futures of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are of vital importance to Washington. The United States must therefore simultaneously publicly demonstrate its sensitivity to pressures from these nations over the Palestinian question while being careful to achieve nothing — an easy enough goal to achieve.

The various Israeli-Palestinian peace processes have thus served U.S. and Arab interests quite well. They provide the illusion of activity, with high-level visits breathlessly reported in the media, succeeded by talks and concessions — all followed by stalemate and new rounds of violence, thus beginning the cycle all over again.

Related posts:

  1. Palestinian woman attacks Israeli soldiers
  2. Abbas won’t negotiate: wants Jerusalem to be Palestinian capital
  3. Another rocket hits Israel, in a second Palestinian violation of the Gaza “truce”
  4. Netanyahu to Obama: “What the hell do you want from me?”
  5. Palestinians prefer terror over peace talks
  6. Jordan King to Israel: Peace now or war next year
  7. Middle East: Palestinian group vows to murder Israeli MP
  8. Fatah activist planned Jerusalem massacre; Salary paid for by US Government
  9. Palestinian family tortures, murders 15-year-old son for “collaboration” with Israel
  10. Hamas executes suspected Fatah traitors in Gaza
Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • Insightful read. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Others no doubt will like it like I did.
  • Infidel_Tabatha
    There is a truly *brilliant* article on this topic over at Sultan Knish. It is a must-read piece for anyone interested in this issue:

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/05/who-nee...
  • This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 5/20/2009, at The Unreligious Right
  • Necrowulf
    Nice blog you've there!
  • JEWHAWK
    Obama will throw Israel under the bus.This will make a lot of leftist
    people HAPPY,because they HATE us to death.

    This so-called "TWO-STATE SOLUTION" was REJECTED by the arabs
    in 1947.They wanted the "ONE STATE SOLUTION"...a 100% muslim one,
    the surviving Jews would have to SWIM BACK to Europe.

    This proposal isn't doable under any circunstance.It's an ill-disguised PLOT
    to undermine Israel by weakening it from inside.Obama knows that and
    he's FORCING Israel to swallow a pill that no other country would.

    Israel left Southern Lebanon in 2000.What happened afterwards? The
    Hezbollah launched THOUSANDS of IRANIAN-MADE rockets against
    Israeli civillians.Was it worthy to LEAVE? Nope.On the contrary,
    emboldened the muslims to launch even more rockets.

    Israel left Gaza in 2005.what happened afterwards?The same outcome
    from Lebanon's withdrawal.
    What's NEXT?

    This thing called "palestinian state" is nothing less than a great LIE,
    invented to SCREW Israel.
  • Rightwing Amreican 1st Jew
    The leftist Neo-Cons love Israel, so much that they send our troops to die for you.

    What the hell are you complaining about.
  • explain leftist Neocons. I've never hear of a leftist Neo-Conservative. Seems like an oxymoron to me.
  • Rightwing American 1st Jew
    Neo-Con = Democrat infiltration of Republican Party.
    There is nothing Conservative about a Neo-Con.

    They have taken over my party.
  • I think you mean RINO. I agree though, they have taken over the party and we need to go back to Reagan Conservatism.

    question, what would you call a libertarian infiltration of the Republican party? Sounds like that's what you want.
  • american1stjew
    If you actually read the republican platform you will see it is very libertarian.
    I personally am a bit more socially conservative than the Big (L) libertarians.

    RINO is code for Neo-Con,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
    Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.[1][2][3] Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[4]
  • I'm a Reagan Conservative. I want the party to go back to those principles.

    1. The idea that an individual was and should always be the master of his or her own destiny.
    2. The belief in the unique character and powers of every human being and their personal opinions.
    3. A belief in freedom under law, as opposed to the concept of modern liberalism that power is everything.
    4. A belief that collectivism and the centralizing of power in Washington threatened Americans with a loss of freedom in their own communities and daily lives.
    5. A belief in the individual over bureaucracy.
    6. That modern liberalism has, in the words of Whittaker Chambers, a "vindictiveness...of temper."
    7. That, as Reagan wrote, "we cannot diminish the value of an entire category of human life -- the unborn -- without diminishing the value of all human life."
    8. That we will all die, but what makes the difference, as Reagan once said, is what we die for. That there are things worth dying for, and peace, alas, can never be purchased at any price but strength.
    9. That freedom belongs to every individual by divine right.
    10. That freedom is better than control.

    Ron Paul would abhor the Goldwater-Reagan platform. He has no clue what this country has fought for throughout the years. If it were up to Ron Paul, The Nazi's would still be in power, Russia would be bigger and stronger than ever threatening the world with their nuclear weapons, oh and let me remind you, there would be no such thing as South Korea...

    Ron Paul is not who you think he is if you think becoming a protectionist state is the way to go.

    Seriously, Ron Paul's own followers don't even know what his policies are. Reminds me a lot of Obama zombies. Just cause you support your allies abroad and choose to fight EVIL when it attacks you, that doesn't make you a neo con.
  • american1stjew
    No where in those 10 planks did I see getting into entangling alliances, or building an empire all over the world or bankrupting our country to achieve those goals.

    Ron Paul ran on a strict Conservative Republican Platform, Ron did attract allot people that support liberty and freedom. Even people with fringe ideas like freedom Infidelesto, it doesnt mean we have to agree with them!

    I think you are wrong about what the majority of his followers are all about.
    They are some of the most politically informed people on the planet, They just disagree with you about how were are supposed to do things, We want to return to the Constitution and the Republican Party Platform.
    We are getting elected to office here in NH and the establishment Republicrats are shaken. We are slowly taking the party back and the Neo-Cons are pissed, Ron used some of his PAC money to support my wifes Campaign she got elected to the House of Representative here in NH as a Ron Paul Republican and she did it with out the support of the State GOP who said she was not viable she is the only Conservative Republican in our district to get elected. The Goldwater and Ron Paul Republicans made that happen, None of them were antisemitic or 911 loony toons, It was Ron Paul Conservatives that Got the Tea Parties off the Ground, These people are a force to tap into not riddicule.
  • It's funny how you won't address things like Korea or WW2. Is it too hard for you to say "we should have let the commies take over the South Koreans" or "we should have let Hitler run amok"? Why won't you address it?

    Republicanism is based on peace through strength, not based on peace through burying our heads in the sand.

    Ronald Reagan is perhaps most noted for being a president who understood the need to protect us from harm at home and abroad. When many thought the best solution was appease our Cold War enemies, President Reagan confronted the Soviet threat head-on and gave hope to millions living in the Soviet Union. Today America must be willing to defend itself and protect its interests and its allies.

    He said, "Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act.”

    We must be willing to identify the nations and terrorist organizations and ideologies that threaten us, and confront them here and around the world.

    You're right we're taking back the party, but it's not the protectionist Ron Paul types that are taking back the party, it's the grass roots reagan conservatives that are bringing the conservative movement back to what it was when we had two landslide victories in the 80's. Even back then Paul was considered a radical and there was good reason why he was never brought into the mainstream of repulicanism. His views are and always have been radical on those issues.

    Paul would be a great guy for domestic issues and the economy, but don't let him anywhere near foreign policy.

    Also let me remind you of a famous Barry Goldwater quote:
    "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."


    Paul would never defend liberty the way Goldwater preached...
  • SirWilhelm
    So, it seems even if the Palestinians woke up to the reality that they are just pawns, there is nothing they can do about it but continue to suffer. And all Israel can do is to continue to defend itself as it has all along.
  • The Pali's are screwed. They've screwed themselves though. They had a chance to be a part of Jordan, but Arafat and his gang of thugs tried to overthrow the monarchy and were promptly shown the door, after that they turned their sights on Israel and became "victims" after creating their own victimhood by attacking and terrorizing Jews in Israel. Israel has given them multiple opportunities to embrace peace but have refused. Denying the existence of Israel is all they know. The only hope they have is to reject their radical Islamic ideology and stop teaching their kids not to hate.

    But we all know that's simply a pipe dream.
blog comments powered by Disqus