The Likud
party, which has many American supporters, have from the
beginning of the party's existence aimed at a single Jewish
state embracing ideally the whole of ancient
Some members of Likud, led by Ariel Sharon, came to believe that the goal was unattainable, that Israel would never be able to establish its sovereignty over the whole of former mandated Palestine. The main reason for this change of sentiment was what was called the "demographic problem", i.e. the fecundity of the Arab population, not only in the Occupied Territories but also within Israel itself. (See Speyer, Oren, Cobban.) Zionism sought to build a democratic Jewish state. Israel cannot be both democratic and Jewish if too high a proportion of its residents are non-Jewish. It must either (1) become a multicultural state, or (2) withhold voting rights from non-Jews, or (3) treat predominiantly non-Jewish areas as Bantustans, or (4) engage in massive ethnic cleansing ("population transfer") to remove non-Jews from the area of former mandated Palestine, or (5) restrict the borders of Israel to the predominantly Jewish areas and allow other areas to rule themselves. The dissident members of Likud favoured the last option.
In 2005 Sharon and his followers split from Likud and formed Kadima. Sharon sought to define Israel's borders unilaterally, without negotiation with the Palestinians, beginning with the withdrawal from Gaza (see Shavit's interview with Weissglas). However, Sharon's successor, Olmert, and his minister, Tzipi Livni, on the urging of the US, did engage in negotations with the Palestinians (the Annapolis negotiations), and on 13 September 2008, Olmert in a private meeting offered Mahmoud Abbas a definition of Israel's boundaries--what might be described as another "generous offer". (On Ehud Barak's July 2000 "generous offer"--according to some neither Barak's nor generous nor an offer--see Agha and Malley, Morris, Barak et al.). But by the time he made this offer Olmert's government was in caretaker mode pending an election, and nothing came of the proposal.
The election resulted in the formation of a coalition government (31 March 2009) led by the Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, who had been the chief opponent within Likud of Sharon's acceptance of restricted borders for Israel. On proposals for a Palestinian state Netanyahu had been clear: "Not today, not tomorrow, not ever" (12 May, 2002).
the variations on Israel’s requirements for recognition now add up to three. The other two are recognition of Israel’s right to exist and formal recognition of Israel as a state.... [Israel] keeps raising the ante in order to block any dialogue whatsoever. (Touval)Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech added a fourth requirement, that this right be recognised as "historic", not related merely to the Shoah but also to the fact that the Jews have lived in the region since ancient times. In fact the demand for recognition of the Jews' right to establish a Jewish state in Palestine based on their ancient connection with the land was part of the Zionist thinking from the beginning.
Since the formation of his government the Obama administration has been pressing him to accept a settlement freeze and to begin negotiation toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. Under US pressure Netanyahu has reluctantly endorsed the eventual formation of a Palestinian state, subject to certain conditions (see SMH editorial): the Palestinians must recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people (which implies some second class status for Arab Israelis), they must recognise Israel's "historic" right to exist (which implies that the process beginning from the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations mandate was right and just), Palestine must be demilitarised, and Jerusalem united must be the capital of Israel. Netanyahu's father (a deep influence on him--see Goldberg) has explained: “He does not support it [a Palestinian state]. He supports such conditions that they [the Palestinians] will never accept it. That’s what I heard from him. I didn’t propose these conditions, he did. They will never accept these conditions. Not one of them.” (See Karon.)
There
are
various other positions (see above).
Those who sympathise strongly with the Palestinians advocate a
single multi-cultural (or bi-national) state embracing the whole
of mandated
Commentators
whose
sympathies
are with Likud urge another option in various versions: the
Jordanian solution (Benny Morris, reported Goldstein,
Bar-Zohar),
the
Jordanian/Egyptian
option
(Brownback),
the
“no state solution”, i.e. no state of
Agha and Malley have pointed out that Palestinians displaced in 1948 from the area now established as the state of Israel are more interested in the return of refugees to their family homes than in the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. How the refugees might be reconciled is the subject of an article by Mead. See also Atran. \
Other suggestions: a unilateral declaration of Palestinian indepedence; the Mofaz plan; dissolve the Palestinian Authority and let the Israelis sort out the situation, or mount another "intifada" pressing for a single multiethnic state (see also here); concentrate onpractical improvements to the life of Palestinians in the West Bank; PM Fayyad's plan to get ready for statehood; offering EU membership to both Israel and Palestine.
See Israel,
Palestine and the US
Return to Home
Page