The Devil's Hoof

I WAS shocked when I read the headline in Haaretz. It quoted SariNusseibeh as saying "There is no Room for Two", meaning two statesbetween the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan.

What? Has Nusseibeh abandoned his support for a solution based on coexistencebetween the State of Israel and the State of Palestine?

I read his long interview with Akiva Eldar and calmed down. Calmed down andimmediately got angry. Because the heading was a gross distortion. It had nobearing on what was said in the interview. And since many people read only theheading and do not bother to study the text underneath, this is a deception.

How do such things happen? In Haaretz, as in most other newspapers, therule is that the headings are not composed by the writers, but by the pageeditor. This may lead to utterly misleading headings - either through ignorance,negligence, or malice.

This time the matter and the person are too important to pass over in silence.


FAIR DISCLOSURE: I like Sari Nusseibeh very much. We once walked arm in arm atthe head of a demonstration in the Old City of Jerusalem. We shared a peaceprize in Germany (the Lev Kopelev Prize of 2003, named after the exiled Russianhuman rights activist.)

I knew his father, Anwar Nusseibeh, a true Palestinian aristocrat, who servedduring the Jordanian occupation as a Jordanian Minister of Defense andambassador to the Court of St. James. Soon after the start of the Israelioccupation, I asked him in confidence whether he would prefer to go back toJordanian rule or have an independent Palestinian state. He told me in nouncertain terms that he preferred the latter.

Sari enjoyed a British education along with the Palestinian. Some people see himas aloof, even overbearing, but I know him as a sensitive, modest person. He isvery courageous, both morally and physically, frequently voicing very unpopularviews. As a result he has been beaten up several times. 

Five years ago, in cooperation with the Israeli Admiral (and current ministerwithout portfolio) Ami Ayalon, he published an unambiguous peace plan,envisioning the establishment of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel,with the border based on the Green Line and with Jerusalem as the capital ofboth states. The plan was not very different from the earlier Gush Shalom peaceplan or the later Geneva Initiative.

Therefore I was shocked when I saw the headline. Could it be that Nusseibeh hasforsaken the central plank of his outlook?


IN THE interview, Nusseibeh says something entirely different. Not only does henot say that "there is no room for two", but on the contrary: he laudsthe Two-State Solution as the best practical solution. However, he adds awarning to the Israelis: because of the rapid expansion of the settlements, timefor the realization of this solution is running out. He even fixes a time limit:the end of 2008.

This amounts to an ultimatum: If the Israelis miss this opportunity, which isstill there, and if they continue to accelerate the settlement activity in EastJerusalem and the West Bank, the Palestinians will turn their backs on thissolution. Instead, they will accept the annexation of the occupied Palestinianterritories to Israel, i.e. Israeli rule over the entire country between the seaand the river, and struggle for equal civil rights within this state. He callsthis a "default alternative".

Nusseibeh is holding the demographic pistol against the temple of the Israelipublic. He is telling them, in effect: the Palestinians will be a large minorityin such a state. Their struggle for equality will compel Israel, in the end, toaccord them full citizenship. Within a few years the Arab citizens willconstitute the majority. Exit the Zionist dream. Exit the Jewish State. (TzipiLivni, by the way, is saying much the same thing.) 

Nusseibeh knows the Israelis well. He knows that the demographic obsessiondrives them mad. The demographic demon pursues them in their dreams. The franticdiscussion of this subject dominates the Israeli discourse. He believes,therefore, that this threat will compel the Israelis to hurry and agree to theTwo-State Solution. That is the main objective of the interview.


WITH ALL due respect and friendship for Nusseibeh, I believe that this tactic ofhis is unwise. Very unwise.

In his eyes, and in the eyes of some intellectuals on both sides, there are onlytwo possibilities: the "Two-State Solution" or the "One-StateSolution". A Palestinian state alongside Israel or a bi-national State,where equality between all the citizens, Jews and Arabs, is assured.

That is a dangerous misconception.

The "One-State Solution" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. TheOne-State idea is not a solution, but an anti-solution. It is a recipe for anongoing bloody conflict. Not a dream, but a nightmare.

There is no chance at all that the Jewish public will agree, in this generationor the next, to live as a minority in a state dominated by an Arab majority.99.99% of the Jewish population will fight against this tooth and nail. Thedemography will not stop haunting them, but on the contrary, it will push themto do things which are unthinkable today. Ethnic cleansing will become apractical agenda. Even moderate Israelis will be driven into the arms of thefascist right-wing. All means of oppression will become acceptable when theJewish majority adopts the aim of causing the Arabs to leave the country beforethey have a chance of becoming the majority.

True believers in the bi-national state idea will say: OK, let it be. We shallhave one or two generations of bloodshed, of a state of civil war, but in theend we shall persuade or compel the Jews to accord the Palestinians citizenshipand equality. But what normal people would take such a risk?

The real choice is, therefore: the "Two-State Solution" or the"Ethnic Cleansing Solution".

In the best case, the bi-national state is impractical. I assume that Nusseibeh,too, knows this. In his eyes, the threat is a tactical move. He goes evenfurther and suggests carrying out the threat at once in Jerusalem. 

The Arab residents of East Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens and cannot takepart in Knesset elections. However, they have the right to vote in municipalelections. Until now they have boycotted these elections, because participatingwould imply recognition of Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

Nusseibeh raises the possibility of the Arab residents ending the boycott andputting up an election list of their own. They amount to roughly a third of thecity's population, and the Jewish majority is divided between the orthodox andthe secular, so the Arabs would be able to decide who would be the next mayor.Nusseibeh does not reject the idea of running for the job himself. He believesthat this would frighten the Jews out of their wits.


THE REAL danger inherent in this tactic is not that it would convert people intoaccepting the bi-national state idea. The danger is far greater and much moreimmediate.

The main danger is this: If the whole country is about to become a bi-nationalstate anyway, there is no further reason to restrict Jewish settlement anywhereat all.

Nusseibeh argues that time for the Two-State Solution is running out because ofJewish settlement activity in the West Bank, and especially in East Jerusalem.But it is precisely the One-State idea that opens the floodgates to unrestrictedJewish settlement. In theory, it also allows the Palestinians to adopt thisoption - but even mentioning this possibility reveals its absurdity.

The real struggle today is about the settlements. It is being waged all over thecountry, for every settlement, every "outpost", every by-pass road,every housing project. It is a titanic struggle that is being fought outeverywhere, from the "Har Homa" settlement in Jerusalem to the"Separation Wall' (which is nothing but a means for enlarging thesettlements, as even the Israeli Supreme Court now admits.) 

The Nusseibeh tactic pulls the rug out from under all those of us who fightagainst the land grab and settlements - from the courageous activists who aredaily demonstrating and being injured in the struggle against the Wall, to ourfriends abroad, who address public opinion in their own countries.

The "vision" of the bi-national state belongs to the far future, butthe immediate result of campaigning for it is to remove all obstacles to thesettlement effort.


THIS IS also the objective which Ehud Olmert, with his devious maneuvering, hasin mind. He proclaims loudly that he is in favor of the Two-State Solution, butonly a fool would take him seriously, considering what he is doing on theground.

Two weeks ago, his people leaked the peace plan which he is submitting to thePalestinian Authority. An innocent, even positive plan.

Its main ingredients: Israel will return all the occupied territories to thePalestinian state, except 7% of the area, where the settlement blocs arelocated. In return, Israel will turn over to the Palestinians areas of Israelproper, equal to 5.5% of the West Bank. In addition, Israel will allow thePalestinians the use of a passage to be opened between the Gaza Strip and theWest Bank. That will make up for the difference between the areas of the landswap.

So where is the sting? The devil, as the saying goes, is hiding in the smalldetails. The accord would be a "shelf agreement". It will beimplemented in the future. When? Ah, well…

The occupied territories in the West Bank will be returned to the Palestinianswhen the Palestinian Authority proves that it is able to control them. Who willdecide? We, of course. 

The Israeli areas that are to be turned over to the Palestinians, in return forthe areas which will be annexed to Israel, are located alongside the Gaza Strip.When will they be turned over? After the Hamas administration in the Gaza Striphas been overthrown and the Palestinian Authority asserts itself there. The sameapplies to the Gaza-West Bank passage. When will that happen? As the ancientRomans said: "ad calendas graecas", on the Greek Calends. (In theRoman calendar, the Calends were the first days of the month - the Greekcalendar had no Calends.)

The real sting became apparent when Olmert's "confidants" explainedthat immediately after the acceptance of the "shelf agreement" by thePalestinians, Israel will start to accelerate the settlement activities, since -according to the agreement - the settlement blocs will in any case become partof Israel. Even the Americans could not object to that, after the Palestiniansthemselves have agreed to the annexation of these areas to Israel.

Simply put: all these agreements are empty words, and only one thing ispractical and immediate: the settlements will be ceaselessly expanded.


IN CHRISTIAN mythology, the devil has a cloven hoof. Sometimes this hoof showsunder his long robe, giving him away.

Our devil's hoof is the settlements. While scrutinizing any idea or plan, oneshould lift the hem of the robe and see what it is standing on.