The Warped Mirror: Hoping for failure

Here is a quiz to test your political acumen. When you read the following statement, try to guess the political affiliation of the person who made it: "statehood as such is a relatively recent addition to Palestinian aspirations. The main Palestinian impetus after [...] 1948 was that of 'return'; it was more about reversing the loss of Arab land and patrimony, than the fulfillment of classical post-colonial self-determination, via statehood. [...] It was only after [...1967] that a new Palestinian national identity began to take shape. At its core was the notion of the armed struggle as a galvanizing force. Armed struggle, according to Fatah, restored Palestinian dignity and gave the Palestinians a say in determining their future. Statehood and state building had no real place in this scheme. Indeed, the first tentative proposals to establish a state [...] were rejected as defeatist and a betrayal of the national cause."

You may think this is an easy one - who wouldn't recognize the standard argumentation of people on the political right who deny that there is any historical validity to Palestinian claims of a distinct identity and who insist that it was never a priority for Palestinians to get a state of their own, because all they really wanted was to get rid of the Jewish state? It sure sounds like that, doesn't it?

It may sound like that, but the quote is taken from a recent article written by the former Palestinian negotiator and current Oxford academic Ahmad Samih Khalidi . Khalidi’s article is entitled "Thanks, but no thanks", and his polite but unambiguous rejection of the two-state solution is justified with the claim that it "does not offer the equitable and fair solution the Palestinian people deserve".

Khalidi expresses his own preferences in truly Orwellian terms, suggesting that the Palestinians "could evoke Olmert's worst nightmare and call for a more equitable and fair resolution that is built on a different basis; one of mutual respect, equality and mutuality, and a sense of genuine partnership in sharing the land. [...] Palestinians could simply continue to say no to a state [...] it's hard to see how Israel can win this struggle in the long term."

The reference to "Olmert's worst nightmare" alludes of course to the controversial and much criticized remark that Israel would be 'finished' if the two-state solution could not be achieved in the foreseeable future through negotiations. While it may be easy to reject Olmert's remark as too dramatic, there is undeniably reason to worry about Israel's future. Those who believe that Israel can maintain the status quo indefinitely and still prosper don't have a very good case, not least because Israel finds itself continuously on the defensive when it comes to international public opinion. It can not simply be shrugged off that a renowned "realist" like Henry Kissinger recently argued that among the "new and growing dangers" threatening Israel is the fact that the country "finds itself increasingly isolated because of the growing perception in Western Europe and in small but influential circles in the United States that Israel's alleged intransigence is the cause of Arab hostility to the West."

It matters little that this perception is based on the often blatantly biased media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that depicts the Palestinians as the quintessential victim and the Israelis as the irredeemable villain. While groups like CAMERA  and HonestReporting work hard to expose and counter biased media coverage, Israel will remain vulnerable to harsh criticism as long as it controls the West Bank and its Palestinian population.

Many people oppose an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank with the entirely justified argument that such a move could result in grave security risks for Israel. Such concerns have only intensified in the wake of Israel's evacuation of the Gaza strip, and issues related to security will obviously loom large in the planned negotiations with the Palestinians. But it is often overlooked that there are also considerable risks if Israel continues to maintain its control of the West Bank - ultimately, this is exactly what advocates of the so-called "one-state solution" like Khalidi hope for when they suggest that Palestinians should "simply continue to say no to a state" because it is "hard to see how Israel can win this struggle in the long term."

However, it seems that advocates of the "one-state solution" were sufficiently worried about the re-launching of negotiations in Annapolis to prepare and publish a "One State Declaration" that is now being marketed as a "struggle for equality". All you need to know about the "equality" that is advertised as the noble goal is that the Palestinians are encouraged to "push for one secular democratic state in all of Israel and Palestine" because it "is a goal that the Israeli leaders fear more than anything."

It is similarly telling that the authors of the "One State Declaration" hope to enlist Israeli Arabs with the claim that "the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally."

However, the results of a recent opinion poll among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza show that those who hope that a failure of the Annapolis process will eventually lead to a "one-state solution" enjoy only limited popular support. Indeed, the survey documents a sharp increase in support for peace negotiations; moreover, the popularity of Hamas has dropped below 20 percent and there seems to be growing appreciation for the government of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Skepticism about the prospects for the success of the Annapolis process maybe widespread among Palestinians as well as among Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora, and it is unfortunately not difficult to find all too many reasons to justify such skepticism. But whoever wants to justify hopes for a failure of the negotiations can hardly claim to have good reasons or to be in good company.