[THS] John J. Mearsheimer: Israel`s Fated Bleak Future

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25409.htm

Israel's Fated Bleak Future

By John J. Mearsheimer

May 9, 2010 "Chicago Tribune" -- President Barack Obama has finally coaxed Israel
and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. He and most Americans hope that
the talks will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank.
Regrettably, that is not going to happen. Instead, those territories are almost certain
to be incorporated into a "Greater Israel," which will then be an apartheid state
bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa.

There are four possible futures regarding Israel and the occupied territories. The
outcome that gets the most attention is the two-state solution, where a Palestinian
state would control 95 percent or more of the West Bank and all of Gaza, and
territorial swaps would compensate the Palestinians for those small pieces of the West
Bank that Israel would keep. East Jerusalem would be its capital.

The alternatives to a two-state solution all involve creating a Greater Israel — an
Israel that effectively controls Gaza and the West Bank. In the first scenario, it would
become a democratic binational state in which Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal
political rights. This solution would mean abandoning the original Zionist vision of a
Jewish state, since Palestinians would eventually outnumber Jews.

Israel could also expel most of the Palestinians from Greater Israel, preserving its
Jewish character through ethnic cleansing. Something similar happened in 1948,
when the Zionists drove 700,000 Palestinians out of the territory that became Israel.
The final alternative is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel increases its control
over the occupied territories, but allows the Palestinians to exercise limited autonomy
in a set of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves.

The two-state solution is the best of these alternatives, but most Israelis are opposed
to making the sacrifices that would be necessary to create a viable Palestinian state.
There are about 480,000 settlers in the occupied territories and an extensive
infrastructure of connector and bypass roads, not to mention the settlements
themselves. A Hebrew University Truman Institute poll in March of West Bank settlers
found that 21 percent believe that "all means must be employed to resist the
evacuation of most West Bank settlements, including the use of arms." They needn't
worry, however, because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is committed to
expanding the settlements throughout the occupied territories.

Of course, there are prominent Israelis like former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and
former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who do favor a two-state solution. But that does
not mean that they would be willing or able to make the concessions necessary to
create a legitimate Palestinian state. Olmert did not do so when he was prime
minister, and it is unlikely that he or Livni could get enough of their fellow citizens to
back a genuine two-state solution. The political center of gravity in Israel has shifted
sharply to the right over the past decade, and there is no sizable pro-peace political
party or movement they could turn to for help.

Some advocates of a two-state solution believe the Obama administration can compel
Israel to accept a two-state outcome. The United States, after all, is the most
powerful country in the world and should have great leverage over Israel, because it
gives the Jewish state so much diplomatic and material support.

But no American president can pressure Israel to change its policies toward the
Palestinians. The main reason is the Israel lobby, a powerful coalition of American
Jews and Christian evangelicals that has a profound influence on U.S. Middle East
policy. Alan Dershowitz was spot on when he said, "My generation of Jews 
 became
part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fundraising effort in the
history of democracy."

Consider that every American president since 1967 has opposed settlement building,
yet none has been able to get Israel to stop building them. There is little evidence
that Obama is different from his predecessors. Shortly after taking office, he
demanded that Israel stop all settlement building in the occupied territories.
Netanyahu refused and Obama caved in to him. The president recently made it clear
that he wants Israel to stop building in East Jerusalem. In response, Netanyahu said
that Israel would never stop building there, because it is an integral part of the
Jewish state. Obama, under pressure from the lobby, has remained silent and
certainly has not threatened to punish Israel.

The best Obama can hope for is to push forward the so-called peace process, but
most people understand that these negotiations are a charade. The two sides will
engage in endless talks while Israel continues to colonize Palestinian lands. The likely
result, therefore, will be a Greater Israel between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean Sea.

But who will live there and what kind of political system will it have?

It will not be a democratic binational state, at least not in the near future. The vast
majority of Israel's Jews have no interest in living in a state dominated by
Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing would guarantee that Greater Israel retains a Jewish
majority, but that murderous strategy would do enormous damage to Israel's moral
fabric, to its relationship with Jews in the Diaspora, and to its international standing.
No genuine friend of Israel could support this crime against humanity.

The most likely outcome is that Greater Israel will become a full-fledged apartheid
state. There are already separate laws, separate roads and separate housing in the
occupied territories, and the Palestinians are essentially confined to impoverished
enclaves. Indeed, two former Israeli prime ministers — Ehud Barak and Olmert —
have made just this point. Olmert said that if the two-state solution collapses, Israel
will face a "South African-style struggle." He went so far as to argue, "as soon as that
happens, the state of Israel is finished."

Olmert is correct. A Jewish apartheid state is not sustainable over the long term. The
discrimination and repression that underpin apartheid are antithetical to core
Western values. How could anyone make a moral case for it in the United States,
where democracy is venerated and segregation and racism are routinely
condemned? It is equally hard to imagine the United States having a "special
relationship" with an apartheid state. It is much easier to imagine Americans strongly
opposing that racist state's political system and working hard to change it. An
apartheid Israel would also be a strategic liability for the United States.

This is why, in the end, Greater Israel will become a democratic binational state,
whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. This will mean the end of
the Zionist dream.

What is truly remarkable about this situation is that the lobby is effectively helping
Israel destroy its own future as a Jewish state. On top of that, there is an alternative
outcome that would be relatively easy to achieve and is clearly in Israel's best
interests: the two-state solution. It is hard to understand why Israel and its American
supporters are not working overtime to create a viable Palestinian state and why
instead they are moving full-speed ahead to build an apartheid state. It makes no
sense from either a moral or a strategic perspective.

John J. Mearsheimer teaches political science at the University of Chicago and is the
co-author of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."

Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune