There is a quip that a camel is a horse designed by committee, a witticism that never seemed truer than it did this week. In a unanimous vote on Tuesday, the Republican Party Platform Committee introduced a new plank on Israel that dropped all references to the two-state solution – references that had been included in every Republican Party platform since 2004 – and made clear that it is taking its cues from Donald Trump. Much like other Trumpian policy positions and pearls of wisdom that emanate from the candidate and his advisers, this one is destined to wither on the vine. But let’s not allow the moment to pass without fully acknowledging its myopic foolishness and what it says about how out of touch with reality the GOP platform delegates are.
The 2012 Republican platform was unequivocal in its support for Israel and its security, and in its appreciation of the shared values between Israel and the U.S. And yet, somehow it did not see the following lines as contradictory to any of that: “We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states – Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine – living in peace and security…. The U.S. seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves with the assistance of the U.S., without the imposition of an artificial timetable.” Republican support for two states was not an accident, and in fact the first president to explicitly call for a Palestinian state was George W. Bush. Republicans have long understood that the two-state solution is the only secure long-term path for Israel, which is why they have embraced it despite serious and valid reservations over whether an independent Palestine will be a viable or peaceful Israeli neighbor. The excising of all mentions of two states is not neutral or innocuous; it is a purposeful reversal of policy, no matter how advocates for the new platform position attempt to spin the development. Removing long-standing language is an active statement, and by cheerleading this process along, Trump and his henchmen are putting the GOP in conflict not only with American policy, but with Israeli policy as well.
In 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence.” In November 2015, he said, ““I remain committed to a vision of peace of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.” It is one thing to debate over how best to get to two states, whether it is feasible at the moment, what conditions must be in force in order for a Palestinian state to become a reality, and what the timetable should be. It is quite another not to endorse two states in any guise and to tacitly promote a one-state catastrophe. Netanyahu falls under the first category, and the Republican platform now falls under the second. Make no mistake – there is no world in which this can be considered a rational pro-Israel position.
Let’s start with what should be obvious: one state means the end of Israel as both Jewish and democratic. That David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt – Trump’s two Israel advisers, both of whom work as corporate lawyers and whose expertise in Israel policy seems to extend as far but no farther than the fact that they are Jewish and have spent time in Israel – are reduced to peddling mythical statistics in service of denying this simple truth only demonstrates the delusion at work here. The entire fight against the BDS movement is predicated on the very idea that one state means the end of Israel as we know it, so that the Republican platform can in one breath denounce BDS for seeking to destroy Israel and then with the next encourage a one-state policy is a truly acrobatic feat of cognitive dissonance. And is there even a need anymore to tackle the chimera of the “sustainable status quo,” a concept that Netanyahu has rebuffed both publicly and privately and one against which the near entirety of Israel’s security establishment has revolted? Smart Republican Israel hands such as Elliott Abrams understand the importance of preserving the two-state solution, and yet the Trumpkins have managed to drown out decades of GOP expertise and experience by employing their common follow-the-leader tactic of acting upon whatever half-baked thought pops into their heads.
But let’s set all of this aside. Let’s assume that the experts are all wrong, and that either the status quo can continue forever or that Israel can annex the West Bank with no devastating adverse consequences. Isn’t there a constant refrain from the pro-Israel community about not imposing outside solutions on Israel and yielding to Israelis to determine their own destiny? I do not say this sarcastically; I am in full agreement and very much on the record as believing that Americans can and should express their preferences to Israel, come up with helpful suggestions, and make their best arguments as to why they should be implemented, but ultimately it is up to Israelis to elect their leaders and for the government of Israel to set its own policies. Yet in this instance, the government of Israel has stated its policy preference for a two-state solution and has been clear that a one-state outcome must be avoided at all costs, and the Republican platform has actively decided to contravene that policy. Not only that, it has actively decided to contravene it out of a desire to establish “a relationship with no daylight between America and Israel,” apparently ignorant of the fact that this does the precise opposite. It is unclear to me why hawkish policies that seek to impose unwanted solutions on Israel should be viewed any differently than dovish ones.
Ultimately, platform committees don’t matter in the real world, as much as the delegates desperately want to believe that their hard work is making a difference. I’ll bet that all nominees would fail a well-constructed multiple choice test on their parties’ platform language, and I can guarantee that no president has ever made a decision in office based on what the party platform encouraged or dismissed. Nevertheless, it is disturbing to see the base of the Republican Party be led so far aground by a bloviating, ignorant clodpate and his merry band of troglodytes. Consider Greenblatt’s comments to the Jewish Week: ““My view is that we should look at a single-state solution — and any other options on the table. Don’t take two states as a given; it is quite old. Maybe the Palestinians — after having suffered through the leadership they have had and seeing Israeli Palestinians who live a safe and free life — would also like it.” Not only is this a guy who has clearly never spoken with a Palestinian – and possibly never spoken with an Israeli who doesn’t vote for Habayit Hayehudi – the shallow fatuousness of the analysis beggars belief. Yes, there are indeed Palestinians who would like to see a one-state solution, but they are not the fellow travelers of Greenblatt’s fever dream hallucination. There is a reason that even Netanyahu, who clearly does not relish the prospect of relinquishing the West Bank to say the least, has reluctantly come around to the view that it will ultimately have to be done. There is a reason that two states has become the widespread consensus position, both in Israel and the U.S.
On second thought, perhaps the fact that Trump’s team is driving the GOP into the wilderness on Israel is a good thing. I can think of no better way for the one-state delusion to be discredited for good than for Trump and his coterie of Chelm court jesters to embrace it.
“Let’s assume that the experts are all wrong…”
Hmmm. Shouldn’t that be, given the current circumstances, 20 plus years (and how many wars and “intifadas”?) after Oslo?: “Let’s assume that the experts are right…and a two-state solution is possible”?
You may not have noticed (and, indeed, you are by far not the only one) that a) the Palestinians cannot and will not accept anything that Israel can offer them. (Actually, Israel does not even have the legitimacy to “offer” them anything, since it is a totally illegitimate state. In fact, Israel must give the Palestinians everything they demand.)
And b) the Israelis cannot and will not accept what the Palestinians (the PA as well as Hamas), with all the righteous indignation at their command, are demanding (viz. that Israel either agree to destroy itself or agree to be destroyed).
So where does that leave us (“experts” and “non-experts” alike)?
The Republican platform committee should check President Clinton’s offer or the numerous other offers the Palestinians rejected and call the true friend of Israel, George Soros, and his crew over at at J Street for advice to improve those offers.
I’m sure they will come up with something to make Michael feel better even if it ends up killing thousands of Jews.
I rarely read anything about Israel that brings a smile, but his is delightfully written. I will add “clodpate” to my vocabulary.
I agree with the assertion that the Republican party is now troublingly even more to the right on Israel and Palestine than Bibi. However I think that the idea that Israel can be Jewish and Democratic or be one State, but not both, is troublingly superficial. This is both because it ignores the very viable option of perpetuating the status quo indefinitely (bias towards dramatic change), and the historically relevant option of ethnic cleansing. The latter is presumably ruled out because we cannot imagine the Israelis doing such a terrible thing (because Jews, I guess) but that a. flies in the face of decades of left-wing analyses of Israeli politics which have attempted to argue that Israelis can do that and worse, and b. assumes that Jews are somehow immune to the same state building crimes not only of other peoples –but of historical Israel (1948, 1967) itself–! Which is not to say that I am advocating for a new refugee crisis culminating in the annexation of Judea & Samaria but that anyone analyzing the region who does not acknowledge it as a real possibility (and actually much more likely than the often prophesied one-state solution which Israel is far less likely to allow to occur) is succumbing to one bias or another. Whether Israeli society could survive a major ethnic cleansing campaign is worthy of discussion but they’ve done so before. You’d have to believe that somehow civilization is different in 2016 – but a look at world suggests it is not.
The two state for two peoples idea is quite old, with its first rendition by the League of Nations, followed by the UN Partition Plan and resurrected with Oslo. All have failed.
From what I have read the population statistics gathered by the PA are grossly exaggerated. If correct then the demographic suicide associated with a one state solution is just a fear tactic.
All options should be on the table. The GOP are saying they approve of Israel changing course, if she desires too. That’s having an ally’s back, rather than forcing them to continue down a failed vision.