Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumOPINION PIECE: The Six No's. Israel's Hardline Position toward Palestinians.
Last edited Wed Mar 23, 2022, 09:06 AM - Edit history (1)
https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/02/israeli-palestinian-conflict-danger-no-solution-messaging#:~:text=Israel's%20%E2%80%9CSix%20No's%E2%80%9D,and%20no%20peace%20with%20Israel.It has been pointed out to me that this is an opinion piece. And opinions on this subject are frequently out of line with facts. I welcome any corrections.
There is perhaps an irony or a tragedy to be found in the positional reversal. Whereas Israel evinced flexibility at a historical moment when the Arab states were at their most rigid, today, at a moment when Arab state positions toward Israel are more flexible, Israeli leadership has become more unyielding and offers its own set of nos: no negotiations, no two-state solution, no one-state solution, no freezing of settlements, no Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem and no to the return of any Palestinian refugees to Israel.
No Two-State Solution: Politicians from both the current coalition and the opposition are united in rejecting the creation of a Palestinian state. Prime Minister Bennett, an avid proponent of Israeli settlements who has said a Palestinian state would mean a terror state, even found fault with the Trump administrations peace plan. Despite its overwhelming partiality toward Israel and wide departure from the two-state framework that had garnered international community buy-in, Bennett framed it as a solution aimed at creating two states.
No One-State Outcome: An even greater majority in Israel rejects a shared binational one-state approach since it would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel, and thereby the raison detre of its creation.
No Negotiations: As noted, both Bennett and Alternate Prime Minister Lapid oppose launching any form of political negotiations with the Palestinians.
No End to Settlements: Although Bennett said that his government will neither annex nor form a Palestinian state, he also said that his government will back settlement construction a practice that UNSC Resolution 2334 enshrines as a flagrant violation under international law [that must] immediately and completely cease. Given the longstanding premise that a negotiated agreement would be based on a land-for-peace formula, establishing a Palestinian state on territories occupied in 1967, the Israeli governments continued expropriation of parts of that territory for settlements is chipping away at the possibilities for a viable Palestinian state.
No Palestinian Sovereignty in Jerusalem: Ehud Barak became the first Israeli Prime Minister to show a willingness to divide Jerusalem into two capitals to resolve the conflict. Much ink has been spilled on the reason and responsibilities for the failure of the 2000 Camp David II summit, and on the impact that the brutal violence of the Second Intifada had on both sides.
Causal analysis aside, since the beginning of the 21st century, Israeli leadership has become more adamant in rejecting any division of the city, or even Palestinian claims to a capital therein. Recently, this issue has come to the fore in the Israeli governments opposition to President Bidens proposal to reopen the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem, which served as the de facto mission to the Palestinians before the Trump administration closed it in 2018. Bennett claims that he stood up to Biden on the issue, stating that Israel has only one capital, Jerusalem, and it is the capital of only one country, Israel. The Bennett government has also committed itself to expanding settlement building in East Jerusalem, and undermined the long-standing status quo arrangement at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
No Refugee Return: Finally, over the past 20 years, Israel has taken a harder line in its approach to refugee return. The years 2001-2002 represent the high-water mark on Israeli and Palestinian mutual understandings around refugees. The Clinton Parameters (2001) acknowledged the Palestinian peoples moral and material suffering in the 1948 war; the need for an international mechanism to deal with compensation, resettlement and other issues; and the U.S. role in leading such an effort.
The Clinton Parameters also suggested that Palestinians should have a right to return to the new Palestinian state, to remain where they are, to resettle in a third country, or to be admitted to Israel with a certain limit. The Arab Peace Initiative (2002) called for a just and agreed solution to the refugee problem, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 194 explicitly recognizing that a solution will not be imposed, and that Israel has a role in negotiating and agreeing to a solution, thus dropping the Arab worlds previous all or nothing stance. The Taba peace talks (2001) advanced the Israeli idea of a 15-year, three-track (settlement in Israel, a Palestinian state and a family reunification scheme). Since 2003, Israeli positions have hardened to the point of rejecting any refugee resettlement in Israeli territory. Israel has also heightened its attacks on UNRWA, the U.N. agency serving Palestinian refugees a clear reflection of its policy and attitude in this regard.
A Volatile Status Quo
The three central leaders of Israels coalition government Bennett, Lapid and Defense Minister Gantz have all indicated a willingness or desire to improve the living conditions of Palestinians. A number of modest steps have been undertaken toward this aim, such as legalizing the status of thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank. However, efforts at economic peace have failed numerous times and the conflicts core issues are not going away. Further, the aim of improving the quality of life for Palestinians is contradicted by Israeli policies including home demolition, evictions and a failure to crack down on increasing incidents of terror against Palestinians by Jewish violent extremists.
Against this backdrop, if the Six Nos implicitly nod to an acceptance of the status quo, many in the Israeli right, the prime minister among them, may more explicitly affirm that it is the best or only way forward. Israels Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked indicated that the current situation is the best for everyone. And as far back as 2013, Bennett told a group of settler leaders that the Palestinian issue will never be resolved and must be endured..
However, the dangers of refusing any flexibility or demonstrating a willingness to offer ideas or alternatives for resolving the conflict or bridging the positions of the parties are many. The U.N. special coordinator for the Middle East peace process told the Security Council recently that without a realistic prospect of an end to the occupation and the realization of a two-state solution it is only a matter of time before we face an irreversible, dangerous collapse and widespread instability. The recurrent wars and violence around Gaza, tensions in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, both with Israeli forces and among Palestinians, signal clearly that the status quo cannot endure.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 1434 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post