Milbank would agree that Locke & Co. do have a vision of the good. In fact, he would say it's a derived Judeo-Christian one, an outgrowth of a certain tendency in late medieval political theology, though in the end for Milbank he finds it contrasts with what he sees as the Christian narrative. Hence his term that modernity is a counter-eschatology.
Negative liberty is, er a "positive" liberty I suppose (if that's not too close to home).
Which I think suggests (a la Sandel) a need for much more dialog at the level of society about the strengths and the weaknesses of said liberal vision of the good.
What happens when communities become locations of home ownership in the housing market?
What happens when a societal vision of the good becomes dominated by the notion that everyone gets what they deserve? Or if they don't we simply have to create level playing fields (or something close to that) through redistribution? Or (per Republican practice) redistribute upwards?
I don't want to go anti-modern and I have no romantic notions of the 50s or the 1550s for that matter.
But is tolerance enough? is the good just that we can get a bunch of people from different worldviews together, play hardball politics at the state level without killing each other and forcing their worldview on everybody else (not that this isn't an achievement that liberalism should be proud of) and at the societal level not bothering each other?
Habermas has talked about a post-secular society. Something like that I think is where we should be headed.
Something that includes the great elements of liberalism but moves beyond it in some ways. Those some ways could include elements we typically call communitarian but I think they would look very different than how those ideas have normally been advocated.
Given my loathing of Congressional rules and systems, I think the bill is the best they could have passed. I wish we had a better Congress, a minority party that didn't reject the whole process, and certain tweaks to the bill.
My wishes plus Jiminey Cricket and/or a genie from a lamp would actually have any relevance.
In the meantime, that bill was the best I imagine they could have passed and better than the status quo (by far) and hopefully will continued to improved as time goes on.
I'll just interject here to say that this is precisely what Sandel is talking about. Namely that we get to this point about "measureables" and we hit inevitably the question about political morality. There is no (however much it might be desired) perfect objective measure of liberty lost vs. liberty gained. Because (according to Sandel), our very choice of measurement values is influenced by our political values/morality.
We try to get around that much tougher discussion by things like public choice theory or mathematical attempts to quantify liberty (liberty already being the presupposition of a certain political philosophical view). These in the end are de facto political philosophy-morality questions coming in through the back door that our discourse really can't adjudicate head on.
Again I'm not talking the Republican party and certainly not Bush's presidency. My sense of the parties is that they both are into increasing the size of the state and getting closer to corporate power. They just differ on exactly how to go about that and what that alliance should be deployed to.
In this post, I'm talking at the more philosophical level. The two (philosophy and political parties) are not in my mind completely separate but they aren't totally to be equated either.
I think you're only thinking of alignment in terms of votes in elections relative to Dems and Reps. I'm talking more in philosophical (and particularly economic & political philosophy) terms.
good question. I think that Rawls makes a strong case that his position is not incompatible with a version of classical liberalism. I also think libertarians (and even liberaltarians and conservatives) have taken another strain of classical liberalism and gone in a slightly different direction.
I think this is complicated by the rise of industrialism, so that I would say both US conservatism and US liberalism are heirs to classical liberalism which they've also modified in some regards given the reality of the industrialized (and now post-industrialized) world.
Neoliberalism in that sense I think is a uniting link (in terms of economic philosophy) between the three (conservatives, liberals, and libertarians).
But all three are not republicanism (as a political philosophy). I think Sandel makes a persuasive argument in this regard.
So if you take say the famous Rawls v. Nozick debate, I'm not sure either can totally answer the critiques of the other side, but both are assuming atomistic individuals in the hypothetical state of nature and are just arguing about the merits/demerits of redistributionism and whether it can be validly described as in line with classical liberalism.
But republican thought would critique both Rawls and Nozick because both assume the foundation in atomistic individuals and then building a political philosophy solely from that foundation. True they disagree in where they take those foundations but they do share that same foundation, a point that is totally missed in most debate (I think).
fair ball as br. scott would say. Max was right I shouldn't have thrown that in, so it's good to get some other pushback on it. I'm generally in the not a fan of Goldberg category, particularly his latest antics re: Andrew Sullivan.
I'm not sure they traditions have to be "older' per se. Then we might end up in social conservatism. But I do think minus some cultural practices, the individual valorization element of liberalism does need a counterweight in republican theory-practice. Absent it that it does isolate, marginalize, and alienate people from one another which in the end I think has deleterious consequences.
I didn't think this was muddled; I thought it was good.
I would say Blond is really more in the tradition of republicanism (small 'r'), historically called civic humanism or civic virtue. Sometimes (I think rather badly) called communitarianism. Also sometimes called left-wing conservatism. This strand of thought has basically lost out to all forms of liberalism:
State liberalism: progressives/New Deal liberals
Conservatives: corporate liberalism, anti-Welfare State liberalism
Libertarianism: individual choice liberals, freedom as primary political motive liberals
I'm reading Michael Sandel right now who makes many of the same arguments, so I'll have more to say on that next week.
I did say that Gaza and the West Bank were different in at least one (major league) important respect: scale. And thereby difficulty of extrication.
It's certainly true that in the current climate, Hamas does not have the support in the West Bank that it does in Gaza. If Fatah continues to be unable to achieve a deal, Fatah's control in the WB may not last forever, but let's assume they do hold some control for a while going forward in the West Bank.
The West Bank is economically in better shape than Gaza, though I'm not sure anybody would count that as a great thing.
But they don't have (for all that) the institutions of a state. Even if an Israeli withdraw were to occur, nature abhors a vacuum (particularly in the ME) and that vacuum would be filled--in some (I imagine) positive ways and also I would have to guess very negative ways.
What happens when some of those negatives spill over into Israel? What is Israel's response? A Gaza-like incursion (even if on a smaller, more targeted scale) is not out of the question. And at the point, if the West Bank has been declared a Palestinian state, then that is an act of war. In fact anything that comes over from said West Bank (say a rocket) into Israel would be viewed as a declaration of war.
This gets back to your point that the WB would be de-militarized---by whose decision and how? Doesn't strike me Fatah is going to go for that particularly. If there are still Israeli soldiers in their territories, can we call the Palestinian state (if it is declared) a state?
If it doesn't have monopoly of violence (a la Weber) within its territory is it a state?
It doesn't have to turn into Gaza overnight to become a serious problem. It need not turn into Gaza to have the place swarming with mafia-like types, even hardcore open-source insurgents still hell bent on destroying Israel, and all the rest.
I grant your point about Olmert as well as the current crew of pols, but I don't think you've really given a plausible account of how a future Israeli politician is going to gain the political will to be able to make the pullout. Even granting vast differences between Gaza and West Bank (which I agree are different but not the degree you I think do), how is that going to be sold to the average Israeli on the street? Especially if said politician gets an opponent attacking him/her from the right, saying "Remember Gaza!!"? Even granting wonks (or bloggers) can parse out various differences, can that realistically be sold in a media world, with the Gaza experience so fresh?
I don't think I've vastly underestimated the possibility of a one state solution. I didn't specifically refer to what I think it's chances are, so I guess that's a fair read into it. Or at least a read of what I should have made more explicit.
So here goes. I think the One State Solution has an extremely low (I don't know a number to put on it) chance of happening within say a 50 year time period. That I'm even considering it suggests how low I think the situation has gotten.
So that's the second point--I'm more pessimistic at the current time than you are. I hope you are right; I hope I'm wrong.
The reasons I mentioned as to why I think the 2 State situation is in serious danger are: problems that occurred after the Gaza pullout (rockets, blockade, war) and multiplying that by whatever factor is appropriate relative to the West Bank.
Perhaps we will reach a point where an Israeli PM says, "we have no choice for the future of our country except to extricate from the West Bank. This means forcibly removing our own citizens even though it could very likely cause us to get attacked more in the near term."
And then goes about doing it. And the images on TV of women and children being dragged out (multiplied again by some a large factor relative to the West Bank) and manages to hold it through the entire process. Even after potential attacks.
Such a thing could happen. It's not going to happen now or anytime soon I think but maybe 10 years down the line, I don't know.
The problem I see with that is that's exactly what Olmert said and he didn't do it. In point of fact, he kept with that status quo of buildilng settlements. You could blame him personally for being weak, his low poll numbers, I don't know, but he said basically in effect "either we get out, either there are two states, or we are going to be heading towards *apartheid* state status. Or whatever word that is not controversial we can use for apartheid there. I haven't heard a neutral one, if there could be such a thing as neutral in such a situation, but I'm willing to put the 'a' word in quotation marks or something.
But he still acted in complete opposition to what he said was happening. iow, I think you would agree it's actually much harder than the PM just signing on the dotted line. Or at least, signing on the dotted line is way harder (politically) than is often imagined.
This makes me wonder whether either side is really serious at this point or whether talk of 2 States is in fact (for not all but some major players), a way of not dealing with the reality that maybe that shipped has already sailed.
Maybe the Iranians get a nuclear bomb and the calculus changes. Maybe that would force the Israelis to deal. That's a possibility--hell it might even be more likely the one state scenario. In point of fact, I think the Iranian bomb scenario is likely the only thing to re-start the 2 State solution seriously....absent my crazy US scheme, which admittedly is not going to happen outside of some horrendous set of circumstances I don't want to contemplate but that doesn't mean it might not be the right solution to a problem.
That counterfactual was raised to suggest the point that the 2 State may be in more trouble than is typically imagined.
Whether it was "only" wonks who thought about that idea before and has now become a media thing because people are paying attention is (while true I think) not particularly relevant. Or said another way, the question isn't whether it was a wonk only thing and now has media backing. The question is: is the idea valid (popular or not)?
I'm shading in that direction, I've not made up my mind. I think it is worth seriously considering the question about the viability of the 2 State solution (which is what I tried to do in these posts).
I'm glad to hear a different point of view, one more optimistic than mine.
I still don't think that imaging other scenarios (as I said Plan Bs) at this point is just spitting in the wind. I realize it's further out a field, but I think it is still worth considering.
my idea was not Israel/Palestine become a 51 state.
My "insane" idea was that the US take control over the West Bank, allowing the Israelis to exit while still protecting their flank, and then helping the Palestinians build up a state. Instead of imagining one can just be created--particularly given the status of the West Bank and Israeli security concerns.
Even if your view is the correct one, what is Israel going to do....get Jordan (like Egypt) to agree to blockading the entire West Bank? How are they realistically going to dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank when there are so many more, including much more established/enmeshed ones than in Gaza? Particularly after the electoral smack that Kadima received after the Gaza pullout was seen to be (by many) a failure that allowed too many attacks into Israel?
Will Israel have to have a West Bank invasion on the scale of the recent Gazan one in response?
Those are serious questions. I think for a whole mess of reasons, the Gaza withdrawal which I had hoped would be a new way forward failed. We could argue over causes (percentage of blame, etc.) for why that it is, but I think a number of people, across various sides of this debate would agree with that. And that as such, I can't imagine where the political will is going to come to repeat that on the massive scale of the West Bank. This was a point discussed by North and I.
I hope I'm wrong and you're right on that one, but right now I don't see it.
As I said, the only more insane idea than mine (I thought) was the current state of affairs and its (in my opinion, minus some radical change) inexorable momentum.
I hinted that radical change could come at the point of an Iranian bomb. I would not want it to come to that; I'm not hoping for that situation, but I could see that reversing the current trend.
But absent that scenario, I think a radical shakeup in the trajectory needs to occur or else Israel will be left with only a series of very bad choices.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this one, but I really think you are missing what I was trying to do here and got me pegged for somebody else.
As I said in this post and the last one I have real serious question marks about a one state solution. I think it's extremely problematic in all kinds of ways--given attitudes on both sides (including serious concerns for a minority Israeli Jewish population--as for example North mentioned above).
As I said (again in this post and the other one), I think 2 States is a much preferred scenario. By a long shot.
What I'm working through (and these are posts intended to open debate, to show where my thinking is at, to "think", I haven't got all this figured out) is what happens if the, er, ground upon which the 2 State Solution rests erodes?
What then?
I agree with many of your criticisms of a one state scenario. On both sides.
That still doesn't answer my original set of questions....."Is the 2 State Solution increasingly impossible?" There are a number of voices (who certainly tend to come from one side of the spectrum, there view is certainly open to some critique) who are making I think a strong case that needs to be examined that the 2 State is in serious (if not fatal/near-fatal) circumstances.
Is that right? If not, why not? If not, how do we get out of the current downward spiral?
You say that you think the disengagement from the West Bank will happen. What evidence can you cite for that claim? An announcement that 1600 new homes will be built in East Jerusalem is not exactly evidence of a coming withdraw.
If one doesn't hold your faith (which I hope you're right btw) in future disengagement....then what is Plan B? That was my original post....what is Plan B? I think we've reached a point where it is time to at least think about that idea--which is not the same as throwing out Plan A.
You disagree, cool. I'd be glad to debate it with you, but don't do [what I think was] a hack job on what I've written please.
Such as there is a Plan B out there it's a Single State. Unless Plan B is total all out war between the two and the continued blockade of Gaza unendingly, the continued buildup of settlements in the West Bank and so on. That's not a Plan B I want to see happen for either side, especially for Israel as I said I don't know how many times in both posts and the comments to both posts.
A single state as Plan B has all kinds of problems associated with it. I really question it. BUT IF the 2 state fails (emphasis but and if), then I think of those two options, a single state is preferable. I don't think a single state is preferable to a two state, but I'm not sure how the two state is going to come at this point.
Colonization implies long term desire to control a territory which this wouldn't be. I realize some people would call it colonization, but I don't think (done properly) it would count as that.
Undoubtedly there would be attacks. The point is what position you take from the beginning. Do you hang out on bases and then blitz in, blow a bunch of stuff up at the first attack, or are they more on the ground (with the famed 20:1 ratio beloved of COIN fans)?
I realize this idea has nil chance of happening, but what really is the alternative? The bi-national state doesn't have a shot in hell (with full equal rights for all) doesn't have a shot because of the demographics. The Israelis are not going to unilaterally withdraw from West Bank as they did from Gaza. Way too many more settlers, way more embedding of the occupied territories and no politician could sell it after what happened in Gaza. So I think we continue to face this slow motion cleansing.
Gershom Gorenberg's book on the settlements is called Accidental Empire. I think that hits it on the head. You didn't plan to have an empire (a real colonial empire) in your backyard, but now you do. As much as it's unpleasant for many Israelis to stomach, the harder application of force in that Empire has brought them less violence. But now it comes at the cost of the rationale for the state of Israel in the first place and makes them face as PMs Sharon and Olmert stated, the possibility of a long term colonial occupation and repression of an ethnic majority (but socially/economically minority) population.
So alright, this one may seem a little out of left field, but a thought.
The "state-let" of Palestine is taken over as a protectorate of the United States. It gives it a kind of Guam/Puerto Rico status. With the proviso that it has a time limit (5-10 years, possibly earlier if it develops quickly enough) to be granted statehood.
This would require the US military to give security to the area. I realize that would cause some problems, (some major problems even), and could up the level of various people wanting to cause terrorist attacks in the US and/or now against US forces in the region.
But a potentially "hearts and minds" development project, neighborhood policing would be a vast improvement (I think) over the checkpoints, the Israeli draft putting young soldiers in the worst possible position for them to be in (i.e. policing) and being seen as one-sided in favor of the settlements.
The US then trains the locals Palestinian security forces, controls the air (for Israel's protection).
Then you are beginning to see the outlines of a state coming into view.
The Israelis wouldn't go for a UN peacekeeping force in the region (and I feel them on that one). Such a deal would need UN approval however. Now I realize that has about 0% chance of occurring, but the US would be the only ones that the Israelis would I think trust.
But I think it could possibly and creatively answer your point that the Israelis need some political win in return for dealing. The win would be not dealing with the demographic disaster facing them, including the forecasts of autocratically ruling over such a huge population (without political rights).
The Israelis might be forced to deal anyway in the form of an Iranian nuke.
in the best of all possible world bro, yes, I wouldn't have to put that in. Nor shouldn't have to. Unfortunately my experience in this blogging world is that someone would come in, derail the conversation away from what I found to be his very insightful point on the status of the 2 state solution, and at worst call me anti-semitic (although I guess I got called all but that above anyway).
I guess I was trying to say to someone who found his book on the Israel Lobby incorrect (or even questionable), that they should still be willing to listen on this point, regardless of their view of the book.
Since Prof. Walt is a name that involves a controversy, (in an extremely controversial topic) I think it worth mentioning up front. But maybe you're right that was unfair.
It is true, that I found that he and Mearsheimer failed to persuade me of the central thesis of their book--that was what I meant by finding the book unpersuasive. I feel I gave it a open mind but again I could be accused of bias I suppose.
In terms of the withdraw though, you withdraw without any transitional governance and you have Gaza all over again. The West Bank has some more institutional structures, but not much really.
At the end of the day I don't think Ariel Sharon really cared about a Palestinian state. My cynical take would be he had a kind of "let them sink or swim, I don't care which" attitude. My really cynical side would say he thought if he get the Israelis out, world opinion would move back more in their favor if the Palestinians did in fact "sink" or violence erupted out of their zones to Israel. Obviously that didn't happen.
Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan....keep going down the list. Gaza/Palestinian territories. You go into a place heavy, blow stuff up, round up/kill some baddies, and then leave, it tends not to solve anything.
Extrication from the West Bank (and East Jerusalem) would be so so so much harder than the Gaza and as you say given what happened after the Gaza pullout is politically unfeasible at this point.
You wrote: That brings us to our catch 22. In order to withdraw and give the Pals a country the Israeli’s need to make a deal with that country but they can’t make a deal with the country until it exists and they can’t make it exist unless they can make a deal with it.
It's the last part of that equation I'm asking about. Do you have to make a deal with before making it exist and thereby squaring the circle? Or could it be otherwise--build it and then recognize it?
I think there is a way to do that, though it wouldn't be easy and probably is a long shot politically (on either side), but what other shots are currently left? Except the inevitable real gun shots that are going to keep coming?
I could actually see it getting worse in the near term on my plan before getting much better on the far side. But the Palestinians need (I think) a AKP-like party in Turkey. Not that they are perfect by any means, but at least a step up. Hamas is supposed to be that party but really isn't for a whole host of reasons.
If the car is overheating (to use a horrible example), you take off the cap and the steam will come out. To this example...what is the political equivalent of the 30 minute waiting period to let the thing cool down? Is there any such possibility?
An alternative which others have advocated (but which I don't think will work) is that the "state-let" be simply brought into Jordan. The history of Jordanian-Palestinian intrigue is too fraught (and too close in historical memory) for that ever to work.
I guess the other other alternative would be something like a Palestinian strongman--which Arafat in many ways never was.
I don't know, it's an unbelievably difficult situation. My fear however is unless there is some outside the norm thinking on this one, the reality is that it will continue apace towards the destruction of any possible future Palestinian state. And to show my cards, blame would be on both sides for that state of affairs.
maybe they need a more south african style truth and reconciliation process. Undoubtedly SA has not been a total beacon of wondrous governance (see AIDS denial by gov't) but overall it has not been Zimbabwe.
good call. i see will (as per the normal) is editing my grammatically shabby post at the current moment. maybe he'll catch this one. if not, I'll fix it when he's done.
On “For Non-Blonds”
I prefer Milbank's analysis generally to Blond.
Milbank would agree that Locke & Co. do have a vision of the good. In fact, he would say it's a derived Judeo-Christian one, an outgrowth of a certain tendency in late medieval political theology, though in the end for Milbank he finds it contrasts with what he sees as the Christian narrative. Hence his term that modernity is a counter-eschatology.
Negative liberty is, er a "positive" liberty I suppose (if that's not too close to home).
Which I think suggests (a la Sandel) a need for much more dialog at the level of society about the strengths and the weaknesses of said liberal vision of the good.
What happens when communities become locations of home ownership in the housing market?
What happens when a societal vision of the good becomes dominated by the notion that everyone gets what they deserve? Or if they don't we simply have to create level playing fields (or something close to that) through redistribution? Or (per Republican practice) redistribute upwards?
I don't want to go anti-modern and I have no romantic notions of the 50s or the 1550s for that matter.
But is tolerance enough? is the good just that we can get a bunch of people from different worldviews together, play hardball politics at the state level without killing each other and forcing their worldview on everybody else (not that this isn't an achievement that liberalism should be proud of) and at the societal level not bothering each other?
Habermas has talked about a post-secular society. Something like that I think is where we should be headed.
Something that includes the great elements of liberalism but moves beyond it in some ways. Those some ways could include elements we typically call communitarian but I think they would look very different than how those ideas have normally been advocated.
On “Unable to Clear The Derivative Deck”
Given my loathing of Congressional rules and systems, I think the bill is the best they could have passed. I wish we had a better Congress, a minority party that didn't reject the whole process, and certain tweaks to the bill.
My wishes plus Jiminey Cricket and/or a genie from a lamp would actually have any relevance.
In the meantime, that bill was the best I imagine they could have passed and better than the status quo (by far) and hopefully will continued to improved as time goes on.
On “Blond with Sandel(s)”
I made it comment of the day (see right sidebar mini-posts).
"
jfm,
I'm in a rush now, so I hope to get back to this later, but just wanted to say that is a particularly excellent comment.
"
I'll just interject here to say that this is precisely what Sandel is talking about. Namely that we get to this point about "measureables" and we hit inevitably the question about political morality. There is no (however much it might be desired) perfect objective measure of liberty lost vs. liberty gained. Because (according to Sandel), our very choice of measurement values is influenced by our political values/morality.
We try to get around that much tougher discussion by things like public choice theory or mathematical attempts to quantify liberty (liberty already being the presupposition of a certain political philosophical view). These in the end are de facto political philosophy-morality questions coming in through the back door that our discourse really can't adjudicate head on.
"
tax cuts.
Again I'm not talking the Republican party and certainly not Bush's presidency. My sense of the parties is that they both are into increasing the size of the state and getting closer to corporate power. They just differ on exactly how to go about that and what that alliance should be deployed to.
In this post, I'm talking at the more philosophical level. The two (philosophy and political parties) are not in my mind completely separate but they aren't totally to be equated either.
"
Jay,
I think you're only thinking of alignment in terms of votes in elections relative to Dems and Reps. I'm talking more in philosophical (and particularly economic & political philosophy) terms.
"
freddie,
good question. I think that Rawls makes a strong case that his position is not incompatible with a version of classical liberalism. I also think libertarians (and even liberaltarians and conservatives) have taken another strain of classical liberalism and gone in a slightly different direction.
I think this is complicated by the rise of industrialism, so that I would say both US conservatism and US liberalism are heirs to classical liberalism which they've also modified in some regards given the reality of the industrialized (and now post-industrialized) world.
Neoliberalism in that sense I think is a uniting link (in terms of economic philosophy) between the three (conservatives, liberals, and libertarians).
But all three are not republicanism (as a political philosophy). I think Sandel makes a persuasive argument in this regard.
So if you take say the famous Rawls v. Nozick debate, I'm not sure either can totally answer the critiques of the other side, but both are assuming atomistic individuals in the hypothetical state of nature and are just arguing about the merits/demerits of redistributionism and whether it can be validly described as in line with classical liberalism.
But republican thought would critique both Rawls and Nozick because both assume the foundation in atomistic individuals and then building a political philosophy solely from that foundation. True they disagree in where they take those foundations but they do share that same foundation, a point that is totally missed in most debate (I think).
On “One State to Rule Them All?”
fair ball as br. scott would say. Max was right I shouldn't have thrown that in, so it's good to get some other pushback on it. I'm generally in the not a fan of Goldberg category, particularly his latest antics re: Andrew Sullivan.
On “Blond at Georgetown”
oops 'the' not 'they' in first sentence.
"
I'm not sure they traditions have to be "older' per se. Then we might end up in social conservatism. But I do think minus some cultural practices, the individual valorization element of liberalism does need a counterweight in republican theory-practice. Absent it that it does isolate, marginalize, and alienate people from one another which in the end I think has deleterious consequences.
"
I didn't think this was muddled; I thought it was good.
I would say Blond is really more in the tradition of republicanism (small 'r'), historically called civic humanism or civic virtue. Sometimes (I think rather badly) called communitarianism. Also sometimes called left-wing conservatism. This strand of thought has basically lost out to all forms of liberalism:
State liberalism: progressives/New Deal liberals
Conservatives: corporate liberalism, anti-Welfare State liberalism
Libertarianism: individual choice liberals, freedom as primary political motive liberals
I'm reading Michael Sandel right now who makes many of the same arguments, so I'll have more to say on that next week.
On “One State to Rule Them All?”
I did say that Gaza and the West Bank were different in at least one (major league) important respect: scale. And thereby difficulty of extrication.
It's certainly true that in the current climate, Hamas does not have the support in the West Bank that it does in Gaza. If Fatah continues to be unable to achieve a deal, Fatah's control in the WB may not last forever, but let's assume they do hold some control for a while going forward in the West Bank.
The West Bank is economically in better shape than Gaza, though I'm not sure anybody would count that as a great thing.
But they don't have (for all that) the institutions of a state. Even if an Israeli withdraw were to occur, nature abhors a vacuum (particularly in the ME) and that vacuum would be filled--in some (I imagine) positive ways and also I would have to guess very negative ways.
What happens when some of those negatives spill over into Israel? What is Israel's response? A Gaza-like incursion (even if on a smaller, more targeted scale) is not out of the question. And at the point, if the West Bank has been declared a Palestinian state, then that is an act of war. In fact anything that comes over from said West Bank (say a rocket) into Israel would be viewed as a declaration of war.
This gets back to your point that the WB would be de-militarized---by whose decision and how? Doesn't strike me Fatah is going to go for that particularly. If there are still Israeli soldiers in their territories, can we call the Palestinian state (if it is declared) a state?
If it doesn't have monopoly of violence (a la Weber) within its territory is it a state?
It doesn't have to turn into Gaza overnight to become a serious problem. It need not turn into Gaza to have the place swarming with mafia-like types, even hardcore open-source insurgents still hell bent on destroying Israel, and all the rest.
I grant your point about Olmert as well as the current crew of pols, but I don't think you've really given a plausible account of how a future Israeli politician is going to gain the political will to be able to make the pullout. Even granting vast differences between Gaza and West Bank (which I agree are different but not the degree you I think do), how is that going to be sold to the average Israeli on the street? Especially if said politician gets an opponent attacking him/her from the right, saying "Remember Gaza!!"? Even granting wonks (or bloggers) can parse out various differences, can that realistically be sold in a media world, with the Gaza experience so fresh?
"
I don't think I've vastly underestimated the possibility of a one state solution. I didn't specifically refer to what I think it's chances are, so I guess that's a fair read into it. Or at least a read of what I should have made more explicit.
So here goes. I think the One State Solution has an extremely low (I don't know a number to put on it) chance of happening within say a 50 year time period. That I'm even considering it suggests how low I think the situation has gotten.
So that's the second point--I'm more pessimistic at the current time than you are. I hope you are right; I hope I'm wrong.
The reasons I mentioned as to why I think the 2 State situation is in serious danger are: problems that occurred after the Gaza pullout (rockets, blockade, war) and multiplying that by whatever factor is appropriate relative to the West Bank.
Perhaps we will reach a point where an Israeli PM says, "we have no choice for the future of our country except to extricate from the West Bank. This means forcibly removing our own citizens even though it could very likely cause us to get attacked more in the near term."
And then goes about doing it. And the images on TV of women and children being dragged out (multiplied again by some a large factor relative to the West Bank) and manages to hold it through the entire process. Even after potential attacks.
Such a thing could happen. It's not going to happen now or anytime soon I think but maybe 10 years down the line, I don't know.
The problem I see with that is that's exactly what Olmert said and he didn't do it. In point of fact, he kept with that status quo of buildilng settlements. You could blame him personally for being weak, his low poll numbers, I don't know, but he said basically in effect "either we get out, either there are two states, or we are going to be heading towards *apartheid* state status. Or whatever word that is not controversial we can use for apartheid there. I haven't heard a neutral one, if there could be such a thing as neutral in such a situation, but I'm willing to put the 'a' word in quotation marks or something.
But he still acted in complete opposition to what he said was happening. iow, I think you would agree it's actually much harder than the PM just signing on the dotted line. Or at least, signing on the dotted line is way harder (politically) than is often imagined.
This makes me wonder whether either side is really serious at this point or whether talk of 2 States is in fact (for not all but some major players), a way of not dealing with the reality that maybe that shipped has already sailed.
Maybe the Iranians get a nuclear bomb and the calculus changes. Maybe that would force the Israelis to deal. That's a possibility--hell it might even be more likely the one state scenario. In point of fact, I think the Iranian bomb scenario is likely the only thing to re-start the 2 State solution seriously....absent my crazy US scheme, which admittedly is not going to happen outside of some horrendous set of circumstances I don't want to contemplate but that doesn't mean it might not be the right solution to a problem.
That counterfactual was raised to suggest the point that the 2 State may be in more trouble than is typically imagined.
Whether it was "only" wonks who thought about that idea before and has now become a media thing because people are paying attention is (while true I think) not particularly relevant. Or said another way, the question isn't whether it was a wonk only thing and now has media backing. The question is: is the idea valid (popular or not)?
I'm shading in that direction, I've not made up my mind. I think it is worth seriously considering the question about the viability of the 2 State solution (which is what I tried to do in these posts).
I'm glad to hear a different point of view, one more optimistic than mine.
I still don't think that imaging other scenarios (as I said Plan Bs) at this point is just spitting in the wind. I realize it's further out a field, but I think it is still worth considering.
You don't, fair enough.
"
also max,
my idea was not Israel/Palestine become a 51 state.
My "insane" idea was that the US take control over the West Bank, allowing the Israelis to exit while still protecting their flank, and then helping the Palestinians build up a state. Instead of imagining one can just be created--particularly given the status of the West Bank and Israeli security concerns.
Even if your view is the correct one, what is Israel going to do....get Jordan (like Egypt) to agree to blockading the entire West Bank? How are they realistically going to dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank when there are so many more, including much more established/enmeshed ones than in Gaza? Particularly after the electoral smack that Kadima received after the Gaza pullout was seen to be (by many) a failure that allowed too many attacks into Israel?
Will Israel have to have a West Bank invasion on the scale of the recent Gazan one in response?
Those are serious questions. I think for a whole mess of reasons, the Gaza withdrawal which I had hoped would be a new way forward failed. We could argue over causes (percentage of blame, etc.) for why that it is, but I think a number of people, across various sides of this debate would agree with that. And that as such, I can't imagine where the political will is going to come to repeat that on the massive scale of the West Bank. This was a point discussed by North and I.
I hope I'm wrong and you're right on that one, but right now I don't see it.
As I said, the only more insane idea than mine (I thought) was the current state of affairs and its (in my opinion, minus some radical change) inexorable momentum.
I hinted that radical change could come at the point of an Iranian bomb. I would not want it to come to that; I'm not hoping for that situation, but I could see that reversing the current trend.
But absent that scenario, I think a radical shakeup in the trajectory needs to occur or else Israel will be left with only a series of very bad choices.
"
Max man,
Hold up a second.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this one, but I really think you are missing what I was trying to do here and got me pegged for somebody else.
As I said in this post and the last one I have real serious question marks about a one state solution. I think it's extremely problematic in all kinds of ways--given attitudes on both sides (including serious concerns for a minority Israeli Jewish population--as for example North mentioned above).
As I said (again in this post and the other one), I think 2 States is a much preferred scenario. By a long shot.
What I'm working through (and these are posts intended to open debate, to show where my thinking is at, to "think", I haven't got all this figured out) is what happens if the, er, ground upon which the 2 State Solution rests erodes?
What then?
I agree with many of your criticisms of a one state scenario. On both sides.
That still doesn't answer my original set of questions....."Is the 2 State Solution increasingly impossible?" There are a number of voices (who certainly tend to come from one side of the spectrum, there view is certainly open to some critique) who are making I think a strong case that needs to be examined that the 2 State is in serious (if not fatal/near-fatal) circumstances.
Is that right? If not, why not? If not, how do we get out of the current downward spiral?
You say that you think the disengagement from the West Bank will happen. What evidence can you cite for that claim? An announcement that 1600 new homes will be built in East Jerusalem is not exactly evidence of a coming withdraw.
If one doesn't hold your faith (which I hope you're right btw) in future disengagement....then what is Plan B? That was my original post....what is Plan B? I think we've reached a point where it is time to at least think about that idea--which is not the same as throwing out Plan A.
You disagree, cool. I'd be glad to debate it with you, but don't do [what I think was] a hack job on what I've written please.
Such as there is a Plan B out there it's a Single State. Unless Plan B is total all out war between the two and the continued blockade of Gaza unendingly, the continued buildup of settlements in the West Bank and so on. That's not a Plan B I want to see happen for either side, especially for Israel as I said I don't know how many times in both posts and the comments to both posts.
A single state as Plan B has all kinds of problems associated with it. I really question it. BUT IF the 2 state fails (emphasis but and if), then I think of those two options, a single state is preferable. I don't think a single state is preferable to a two state, but I'm not sure how the two state is going to come at this point.
On “We Are All Enemy Belligerents Now”
God (if there is one or ones) help us.
On “The insignificance of the wunderkomputer”
I assume this is the thread where I should repeat that I for one welcome our coming (musical?) machine overlords.
On “There is No Plan B for Mideast Peace (and Why We Need One)”
Colonization implies long term desire to control a territory which this wouldn't be. I realize some people would call it colonization, but I don't think (done properly) it would count as that.
Undoubtedly there would be attacks. The point is what position you take from the beginning. Do you hang out on bases and then blitz in, blow a bunch of stuff up at the first attack, or are they more on the ground (with the famed 20:1 ratio beloved of COIN fans)?
I realize this idea has nil chance of happening, but what really is the alternative? The bi-national state doesn't have a shot in hell (with full equal rights for all) doesn't have a shot because of the demographics. The Israelis are not going to unilaterally withdraw from West Bank as they did from Gaza. Way too many more settlers, way more embedding of the occupied territories and no politician could sell it after what happened in Gaza. So I think we continue to face this slow motion cleansing.
Gershom Gorenberg's book on the settlements is called Accidental Empire. I think that hits it on the head. You didn't plan to have an empire (a real colonial empire) in your backyard, but now you do. As much as it's unpleasant for many Israelis to stomach, the harder application of force in that Empire has brought them less violence. But now it comes at the cost of the rationale for the state of Israel in the first place and makes them face as PMs Sharon and Olmert stated, the possibility of a long term colonial occupation and repression of an ethnic majority (but socially/economically minority) population.
"
So alright, this one may seem a little out of left field, but a thought.
The "state-let" of Palestine is taken over as a protectorate of the United States. It gives it a kind of Guam/Puerto Rico status. With the proviso that it has a time limit (5-10 years, possibly earlier if it develops quickly enough) to be granted statehood.
This would require the US military to give security to the area. I realize that would cause some problems, (some major problems even), and could up the level of various people wanting to cause terrorist attacks in the US and/or now against US forces in the region.
But a potentially "hearts and minds" development project, neighborhood policing would be a vast improvement (I think) over the checkpoints, the Israeli draft putting young soldiers in the worst possible position for them to be in (i.e. policing) and being seen as one-sided in favor of the settlements.
The US then trains the locals Palestinian security forces, controls the air (for Israel's protection).
Then you are beginning to see the outlines of a state coming into view.
The Israelis wouldn't go for a UN peacekeeping force in the region (and I feel them on that one). Such a deal would need UN approval however. Now I realize that has about 0% chance of occurring, but the US would be the only ones that the Israelis would I think trust.
But I think it could possibly and creatively answer your point that the Israelis need some political win in return for dealing. The win would be not dealing with the demographic disaster facing them, including the forecasts of autocratically ruling over such a huge population (without political rights).
The Israelis might be forced to deal anyway in the form of an Iranian nuke.
"
in the best of all possible world bro, yes, I wouldn't have to put that in. Nor shouldn't have to. Unfortunately my experience in this blogging world is that someone would come in, derail the conversation away from what I found to be his very insightful point on the status of the 2 state solution, and at worst call me anti-semitic (although I guess I got called all but that above anyway).
I guess I was trying to say to someone who found his book on the Israel Lobby incorrect (or even questionable), that they should still be willing to listen on this point, regardless of their view of the book.
Since Prof. Walt is a name that involves a controversy, (in an extremely controversial topic) I think it worth mentioning up front. But maybe you're right that was unfair.
It is true, that I found that he and Mearsheimer failed to persuade me of the central thesis of their book--that was what I meant by finding the book unpersuasive. I feel I gave it a open mind but again I could be accused of bias I suppose.
"
In terms of the withdraw though, you withdraw without any transitional governance and you have Gaza all over again. The West Bank has some more institutional structures, but not much really.
At the end of the day I don't think Ariel Sharon really cared about a Palestinian state. My cynical take would be he had a kind of "let them sink or swim, I don't care which" attitude. My really cynical side would say he thought if he get the Israelis out, world opinion would move back more in their favor if the Palestinians did in fact "sink" or violence erupted out of their zones to Israel. Obviously that didn't happen.
Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan....keep going down the list. Gaza/Palestinian territories. You go into a place heavy, blow stuff up, round up/kill some baddies, and then leave, it tends not to solve anything.
Extrication from the West Bank (and East Jerusalem) would be so so so much harder than the Gaza and as you say given what happened after the Gaza pullout is politically unfeasible at this point.
You wrote:
That brings us to our catch 22. In order to withdraw and give the Pals a country the Israeli’s need to make a deal with that country but they can’t make a deal with the country until it exists and they can’t make it exist unless they can make a deal with it.
It's the last part of that equation I'm asking about. Do you have to make a deal with before making it exist and thereby squaring the circle? Or could it be otherwise--build it and then recognize it?
I think there is a way to do that, though it wouldn't be easy and probably is a long shot politically (on either side), but what other shots are currently left? Except the inevitable real gun shots that are going to keep coming?
"
good points.
I could actually see it getting worse in the near term on my plan before getting much better on the far side. But the Palestinians need (I think) a AKP-like party in Turkey. Not that they are perfect by any means, but at least a step up. Hamas is supposed to be that party but really isn't for a whole host of reasons.
If the car is overheating (to use a horrible example), you take off the cap and the steam will come out. To this example...what is the political equivalent of the 30 minute waiting period to let the thing cool down? Is there any such possibility?
An alternative which others have advocated (but which I don't think will work) is that the "state-let" be simply brought into Jordan. The history of Jordanian-Palestinian intrigue is too fraught (and too close in historical memory) for that ever to work.
I guess the other other alternative would be something like a Palestinian strongman--which Arafat in many ways never was.
I don't know, it's an unbelievably difficult situation. My fear however is unless there is some outside the norm thinking on this one, the reality is that it will continue apace towards the destruction of any possible future Palestinian state. And to show my cards, blame would be on both sides for that state of affairs.
"
maybe they need a more south african style truth and reconciliation process. Undoubtedly SA has not been a total beacon of wondrous governance (see AIDS denial by gov't) but overall it has not been Zimbabwe.
"
good call. i see will (as per the normal) is editing my grammatically shabby post at the current moment. maybe he'll catch this one. if not, I'll fix it when he's done.