Israel, Palestine and America

Spell it out, Barack

As more people bemoan the death of a two-state solution, Barack Obama must strive to keep it alive

See article

Readers' comments


Raimo Kangasniemi

Jordan Valley doesn't need any "special security arrangements". Israel is trying to annex it based on such claims, but it wants the water resources and agricultural land there. Without which a Palestinian state would be unviable.

Abbas' government has said that it accepts international troops on borders with Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Abbas has even been ready to let USA garrison it's troops in the West Bank, but Obama's administration and Olmert's government turned this down, both demanding endless Israeli military presence.

The fact is that without Jordan Valley being fully united with the rest of the West Bank any "state" would be an unviable joke.

Raimo Kangasniemi

The article includes several mistakes: The Palestinians are ready to negotiate about all the core issues, but the Israeli regime refuses to negotiate about them and the "West" refuses to force it to give up this stance. The core issues are East Jerusalem, borders and refugees. There's no point to negotiations if Israel's government acts like it has before, like Lieberman did during negotiations with US representatives in 2009, leaving the room each time that East Jerusalem was mentioned.

Secondly, Abbas' government is ready to let some illegal settlers to stay under Palestinian rule, but already Olmert's government turned down this option. Also, it's impossible to let "most" of the illegal settlers to stay and a have a viable two state solution and letting Israel get most of it's illegal settlements would make a dangerous precedent to other occupied areas in Azerbaidzan, Cyprus, Western Sahara etc. It would encourage more illegal settlement and annexation.


It's fascinating how mainstream media outlets keep to cling on the two-state solution out of political correctness. Anybody with a bit of knowledge and honesty can tell that it's impossible that a viable and independent state can emerge from the small bits of land that Israel is willing to leave for the Palestinians. Israel's intentions are too obvious to deny: constitute a bantustan in the West Bank entirely at the mercy of Israel, with a compliant puppet at its head, and have it recognized as a state. I seriously doubt Palestinians will go for that, and hopefully the "International Community" will for once be brave and upright enough to call off the charade, and start applying the South African medicine the Israeli regime so sorely needs.

Raimo Kangasniemi in reply to F R O Y

Yes. Different Israeli "leaders" would let Palestinians have just an archipelago of disconnected bantustans making up 43-55 percent of the West Bank. For some reason, especially in USA, it's very hard for naive "Pro-Israel" people to understand that this kind of mini-state comprising about 10 % of British Palestine would be an unviable ghetto, a cruel farce.


Next week, US President, Barack Obama, is to visit the King David Hotel, Jerusalem: the site of the 1946 terrorist bombing that killed
more than ninety people, mainly civilians.

That atrocity was a barbaric act of terror carried out on July 22, 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, upon the British administrative HQ for Palestine, which was housed in the hotel. Over 90 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured. The dead included 28 British civilians.

The bombing has been called 'one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century' but Benjamin Netanyahu, now Prime Minister of Israel, has described the bombing as 'a legitimate act': i.e. terrorist atrocities such as this - and, presumably, the later massacre of 107 men, women and children in the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin - in his view were justified in order to gain independence for the proposed
State of Israel.

These inflammatory views raise vital questions for human rights legislation and the power and jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is now recognised by 122 states, including those of the EU, but not by the nuclear-armed state of Israel whose ‘price-tag’ terrorists still burn down homes and destroy crops in the West Bank in an effort to abort a nascent and necessary, Palestinian state.

That is the challenge for President Obama – to prove that he represents the American people and the democratic nations of the free world, and not the sectarian AIPAC lobby that now virtually controls Congress and supports the illegal settlements that violate human rights, increase regional instability and threaten world peace.

DJ Glasnost

Since when does TE reiterate lame conservative talking points as truth. "Least Friendly incumbent " and "didn't go to Israel after Cairo" are things supporters of the Likud and the Jewish Home party may resent, but even they don't genuinely believe they have a right to be upset. Israelis may not be superjazzed about Obama, but that's because it's not '08 and they're worried Bibi has overplayed his hand. Everyone knows the last president that offered anything less than unconditional support was HW Bush over aid money and settlements in 1990.

If "Least Friendly incumbent" means despises Bibi, then both Bush and Clinton meet that criteria (recent TNR article says Bush encouraged Livni to use the peace process to beat Bibi in th '09 election.

The US foriegn policy articles have been bad lately and are getting worse.

Zaha Hassan

As a Palestinian, the one thing that can really make me "surly" is when people refer to me as a "breeder". I would have expected better from The Economist. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll just take my three kids, who with me constitute the "demographic threat" your piece eludes to, and find another periodical for news and current issues.

Yani Haigh in reply to Zaha Hassan

The 'breeders' of concern are not the Palestinians but the Ultra Orthodox Jews that refuse to work on religious grounds, have large families, treat women poorly, are homophobic and have been known to spit on Jewish children in school uniform for being under dressed. Not only spit on them but do it with the approval of the Rabbis.

In a one state solution Palestinians might well be paying the social security of these free loaders who aren't merely temporarily unemployed but have no intention of ever working. This just proved the scope of the racism of the author, Mr Nameless, who doesn't put his name to the racist crud he have written which the editors of this newspaper should be roundly condemned for publishing.

Yani Haigh

"Given the two sides’ proven inability to negotiate"

No the Israelis have proved to be devious and deceptive, have no interest in peace but very interested in piece! This isn't new it goes way back to the assassination of The “Prince Of Peace!” Count Folke Bernadotte on 17 September 1948 by members of the Jewish terrorist Zionist group Lehi. The decision to assassinate him had been taken by Natan Yellin-Mor, Yisrael Eldad and Yitzhak Shamir, who later became Prime Minister of Israel.

There is barely any agreement Israel have ever kept including the Balfour Declaration of 2nd November 1917... "... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..." Or the King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on 22 July 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun, 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.

Or the failure of Israel to implement the Universal Declaration of Human Right, ignoring 65 UN resolutions.

Clearly Israel is little more than an international terrorist state who fails both the Jewish and Palestinian people. When the state ignores the powerful UN, agreements with the British on its foundation and assassinates the UN mediator, it is simply isn't going to respect the powerless Palestinians! As Dr Phil says, "the best indication of future behavior is past behavior" and there is nothing to indicate the Zionists give 2 hoots for anything but a bigger PIECE.


One thing the israelis should know is that when you see the abomination that maketh desolate, a program that will make most of you homeless living your boundaries that you have stayed for so long. Then remember that the TIME HAS COME.

Yankee Kid

Forget about it. Peace has to come first. And it will come sooner or later when love of all becomes a facture in the way of life when all men and women are treated equal reguardless of what religion they have. Let's wait and see what what the Arabs have in mind when they talk about what they are going to do.
At present the Arabs still have a way to go and we need a strong Israel. The Jews have been through Hell, and not wanted, and we are not going to let that happen again. We all must love them and show them that we don't hate them. I have seen what war does to people and they kill even their own in their own personal insanity and even themselves. No one else in the world has suffered more than the Jews. The Palestiens have no rights to their own country. But they do have the right to their own property. They are like brothers and sisters to the Jewish people. They should be left alone to settle their own problems. But they let themselfs be used by the Arabs.

AmericanSmartarse in reply to Yankee Kid

So let me get this straight:

- "The Arabs" (meaning Palestinians) have a "long way to go" - to what, exactly?

- "We need a strong Israel" - for what?

- "The Jews have been through Hell" - and that's my problem or the Palestinians'

- "We all must love them and show them that we don't hate them" - where's the option for "complete and total ambivalence" towards them, mate?

- "No one else in the world has suffered more than the Jews" - oh, come off it. Now you're just being ridiculous.

- "The Palestiens [sic] have no rights to their own country" - actually, according to international law, they do. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that ALL people are entitled to a nationality - Palestinians are entitled to a country, especially considering that theirs was STOLEN at gunpoint and through terrorism.

Yankee Kid in reply to AmericanSmartarse

Sorry. Maybe you will understand if you knew where I am coming from. I was there in WW-ll and saw it all with my own eyes from the beginning to the end and more. It is hard to believe if you didn't see it and I will never forget it even though I am very old and in my ninetes and can barely see. This was British land when I was there. I am offering a way that this can be resolved in a way that will work. Thank you, mate, for your reply.

Raimo Kangasniemi in reply to Yankee Kid

I would have to say that every group of people driven to extinction by other human beings have suffered more than Jews as a group, as Jews still exist as a distinct group of people. Cultural extinction has happened to thousands of groups of people since the beginning of the European expansion and many have suffered literal full extinction with not even any minor genetic legacy left behind.
That isn't intended to diminish past Jewish suffering, but there are about 18 million Jews at the moment. Just look how many people there are left of those that lived on the Caribbean in 1491 for example, or try to find a full-bloodied native Tasmanian.

Yankee Kid in reply to Raimo Kangasniemi

I agree with you. The Jews have gone too far but they have been forced into this. It is true the Palistins have their rights there too, but they did not show it. I was there. They said nothing. They let others speak for them. They should have said "welcome home" "brother's and sisters". They said nothing. They should say that now but it is too late. All the Jews hear is that they will be driven back into the sea. They also hear that everyone hates them. What would you do?
We need to start over again and bring people back together again with love for each other. But that is not what we are doing. We are forcing people to do what we want them to do. The Jews don't want war but they don't want to die either. Give them love but first make war impossible. How can we do that in the Middle East? How many full-bloodied people are there in todays world? At least here in the states, and Europe, is a different problem. The people we are talking about have the same blood but a different religion. Crazy is a better way of looking at it.

Yani Haigh in reply to AmericanSmartarse

"We need a strong Israel" - for what?
Yeah for what?
To throw another 1,600,000 cluster bomblets on Lebanon during peace negotiations in the day before a war ends?
To run a nuclear reactor in an unstable political zone that is now 20+ years past its useby date?
To maintain a chemical and biological stockpile in the Middle East?
To collect Jews together from all over the world because Armageddon is coming? That will be a self fulfilling prophesy!
To rip off the US aid budget that should go to the poor?
To turn the holy land into the 4th largest producer of weapons in the world?
To teach the art of building a $4 billion apartheid wall?
To turn young Jews into racist fascists?
To create PhDs in bogus history?
To blow up Gaza in the months leading up to elections to show the world how to win votes and influence people?
Whoever this 'we' are it is most certainly not 'us'.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Yankee Kid

I presume (from your name) that you are American. Read your own research/magazines - they (i.e., the Israeli's) are not interested in preventing a war - they are planning to start a war - with your money and your soldiers.
Stephen Walt is the author of a famous book on the "unelected power" of the Israeli lobby. This is what he wrote in Foreign Policy a few weeks ago:
The tail not only wags the dog, but it determines whether the dog will get dinner or not.
Have a good evening, Kid - enjoy your supper!!!

tzatz in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"we need a strong Israel" Why so???

In order to protect and defend the Jewish State of Israel from the onslaught of the Arab/Muslim World! The fact is … Israel is the strongest military in the region DESPITE it's tiny size! That's what being aware of the neighbours and military intelligence can do for you.

There can be NO DISPUTE … the Arab/Muslims cannot defeat the Israelis in war … ergo … they must accede to the dictates of the 2 State Solution as proposed by Barak, Olmert, Netanyahu and by the nation state they represent! There can be no military solution only a negotiated End of Conflict Settlement where the entire Arab/Muslim World will need to sign off on.

Prof M H Settelen

The President must go to the Vatican first with President Emeritus Carter*, then on to the Church of the Nativity (now a World Heritage site) & thank the Christian Palestinians for taking care of the Holy sites for all Christendom, then onto the Church of the Holy Sepulchre & then jointly declare under 242 that the UN is moving to Jerusalem & the Secretariat to the Settlements. The Region will be secure overnight! QED
*five learned books on the Holy Land.

Unqualified Critic

Religious nations are so last millenium.


A solution seems simple enough to me (though this will not happen): Obama tells Netanyahu that they either get out of the occupied territories or we cut off the money and treat them as we treated the Aparteid South Africa. No aid, or trade, of any sort will flow to Israel until they get with the program. Israel cannot stand on her own economically.
This would also have the side benefit of dramatically improving our relations with every other nation/group in the region.

tzatz in reply to supamark

Oh so let me get this straight … Obama tells Netanyahu to PROSTRATE HIMSELF before the Arab/Muslim World … take away all the benefits of being a liberal democracy in a region as dysfunctional as the Middle East … and HOPE that this will IMPROVE Israel's standing in the region and/or the World or at least America's?

Is that the gist of your wisdom?

supamark in reply to tzatz

lol, I really don't care about what you think. You're just a pro-Israel zealot. I'm an American who sees little benefit from continued support of Israel, and quite a lot from standing up to them vis-a-vis our goals in the rest of the Mid-East and North Africa (namly dealing with every other nation in that region).

tzatz in reply to supamark

You're an American? OK … I'm a Canadian and the rest of my family is American … my son's in NYC!

What benefit does America get from the Arab/Muslims? Oil? Love? What do they get?

Seems to me … it's the Arab/Muslims that have prospered from the relationship … didn't Kuwait call in America to save their rear end? Didn't America use their blood and treasure on behalf of Arab/Muslims? What have they GOTTEN in return?

Seems … the USA gets a lot out of their support for the ONLY liberal democratic country in the Middle East … the Jewish State! In the 1970's … they used Israel as a proving ground for their Cold WAr battle against the Soviet Union! They got to see their weapons used in combat and learned from it. They got to share intelligence and have prospered from the alliance! They learned how to do 'counter insurgency' from the IDF! They have been party to the new anti-missile defense systems both Israel and the USA have developed … Israeli brains and US $$$ …

Israel has been helped TREMENDOUSLY by US support … but they have a TRUE … SOLID … RELIABLE … ALLY that they can take to the BANK! Can you say that about any other Arab/Muslim state? Nah … didn't think so!


Israel has been admired by some as a democracy in a sea of totalitarian despots, but there is much more to democracy than holding an election every 4-5 years to pick one's leaders. The democracy of Israel in 2013 has little more to admire than the democracy of South Africa in 1980. One hopes that some of Israel's neighbors may eventually become more admirable democracies, although it certainly hasn't happened yet. Simply abandoning support for both Israel and the Palestinians for their general fecklessness has great appeal, but the resulting chaos would probably limit our ability to separate from the problem.

So what are we left with? Obama's powers of persuasion? I'd like him to declare that the US won't support Israel unless Palestinians are granted the right to vote and govern themselves, as part of a multi-cultural state of Israel (more sustainable in the long term if you ask me), or in their own self-governing state. We could offer a guarantee of territorial integrity in return, a promise that Israel seems to think it has implicitly, but which it has never received explicitly. I know he doesn't have congressional support to go that far, but I dearly wish he did. Little will change otherwise.


Bottom line: Israel conquered territory populated by too many non-Jews. It cannot remain a Jewish state if they become citizens of Israel, but, after 45 years, the occupied people, to say nothing of the rest of the world, have grown impatient that so many people are under Israeli control who are not Israelis. But Israel has legitimate security concerns about what happens in the West Bank. Thus far, US support has allowed the Israelis to let things slide. Can that go on forever?
The unsolvable problem today is that there are too many people on both sides who do not want a peace short of complete victory over the other.

Raimo Kangasniemi in reply to bampbs

Claiming that a problem is unsolvable means basically claiming that it should not be tried to be solved.

The problem of the occupation is easy to solve. USA doesn't use it's veto in UN Security Council and Israel made to feel the full force of international sanctions until it fully withdraws from the occupied areas and accepts UN decisions on refugees.

When it comes to the "safety" of Israel afterwards, USA can do what it could have done decades ago if it would have wished to do so (and Israel would have let it to do so): Establish permanent military bases in Israel. Throw in a NATO membership etc.

tzatz in reply to Raimo Kangasniemi

You said: "… (and Israel would have let it to do so) …"

Is this a question? As in IF Israel would have allowed it?


If AMERICA would have IMPOSED it?

My belief is that Israel WANTS/NEEDS TO defend themselves BY THEMSELVES that is, NOT LEAVE THEIR SECURITY IN THE HANDS OF OTHERS!!!!
So … while the membership in NATO sounds nice … I think they'd stick to SELF-DEFENSE as the best policy going forward!


Obama shouldn't tell Israel what Israel's interests are.
This goes against the Obama doctrine articulated in the Cairo speech at the beginning of his presidency.
Pres. Obama declared that "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone."

g. powell

Right, Obama's inability to convince Israel to pursue peace with the Palestinians. That makes no sense.

The real fault lies with U.S. Congress, and especially, but not exclusively, GOP lawmakers. Congress has worked closely with Likud to prevent the U.S. administration from putting pressure on Israel to pursue peace. This is the real problem.

If The Economist does not understand this, is should not write about such matters.

Raimo Kangasniemi in reply to g. powell

The only thing Obama would have to do to "convince" Israel would be to stop using US veto in UN Security Council to "protect" Israel. Congress has no say in that.

It would wake up the majority of Israeli Jews. Sure they would be mostly mad first, but after that they would be more realistic than at the moment about the viability of keeping up an endless occupation.

Congress just makes a foreign policy problem - the continued occupation and ethnic cleansing done by a close US "ally" - into a domestic holy cow and has no intention of letting it to be solved, preferring instead money from Israeli Lobby and votes from Christian Zionists enthralled by their religious visions of End of Days and Second Coming...

tzatz in reply to g. powell

Nothing for the Arab/Muslims?

These 'people' have NO COMPROMISES OR CONCESSIONS TO MAKE? Is that your 'humble' opinion?

It's all about the Jews/Zionists/Israelis? Is that the gist of your 'take'?

tzatz in reply to Raimo Kangasniemi

Wow. Is your 'real' name Walt or Mearsheimer? Are you cousins? No problemo …

Let the UN be the 'hanging judge' against Israel! Is that your idea?

With a bloc of 57 states in the Islamic Organization (the OIC) … so with 57 SURE votes against them … how many more are necessary? You want Israel to be 'hung out to dry' by the USA? One liberal democratic state under the rule of law STABBING IN THE BACK another liberal democratic state under the rule of law? Hello?

Speak to your Congressman …


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The Economist explains: The meaning of Manhattanhenge
The Economist explains 1 hrs 34 mins ago
Alibaba's IPO: Shocked, shocked!
Schumpeter July 13th, 18:10
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00


Products and events



