Israel and American Politics

I just finished Jeremy Ben-Ami's book A New Voice For Israel, which lays out the case for J Street in the American political environment.  I'm toying with the idea of getting more into J Street, as I really agree with Ben-Ami's frustration regarding the "rules" of the Israel policy discussion in the US. 

The American polity's positions on Israel extend from the absolute, unquestioning fetishisizing of the Jewish state among the Republican party, all the way to the strong support without the anti-Arab vitriol, which characterizes the Democrats.  Now I know that in Europe there are real anti-Israel voices that have real power, but there's none of that in the US ouside of the Chomskyite fringes.

As Ben-Ami says, AIPAC and other representatives of the Jewish establishment have done a great job forcing the conversation the way they have- there is just no questioning by either party regarding US support for Israel. 

So it seems to me that the existential problem for single-issue pro-Israel political entities here is that they've already succeeded completely in meeting what should be their goal- to keep US support strong for the benefit of Israel.  But AIPAC and other organizations can't now just pack up and disband, having met their goal.  So it seems that the American Jewish establishment has set out to look for fights, to ensure that not even a wisp of argument that might lead to something that sounds anti-Israel will be tolerated in polite debate in the US.

As Ben-Ami argues, the American Jewish Right doesn't seem to currently support a two state solution in Israel.  I'm not sure that's true, as I still get the sense that the American Jewish establishment at least pays lip service to a two state solution.  Still, it's perfectly acceptable in the US to talk about the hopelessness of negotiating with the Palestinians, and to imply that Israel should just hold on to the West Bank forever.  But when a voice from the Left talks about ending the Occupation or curtailing Jewish settlements in the Territories, the speaker is pilloried as Anti-Semitic.  When a Jew (like me) complains about these things, he's labeled "self-hating".

That frankly pisses me off a lot.  To talk about Israeli mistakes or criticize policies is not anti-Semitic, and it's not even anti-Israel.  I love Israel, and so does Ben-Ami- his grandparents were among those who founded Tel Aviv, and his father was a Jabotinskyist who came to America to raise money for the cause during the early days of the new country.  I can't claim that kind of connection, but I've been to Israel three times, speak a little Hebrew, and feel very strongly about the country's prosperity and survival. 

The worry is that Israel needs to make peace in order to have a long-term future as a Jewish and Democratic state.  Occupation is necessary right now, clearly, as it wouldn't be safe to allow Palestinians dedicated to Israel's destruction to have carte blanche to operate only a few miles from Jerusalem.  But it's not good!  And building Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank is very clearly an impediment to peace.  To say that isn't anti-Israel- it's pro-Israel.  Just because the Palestinians are worse doesn't mean that Israelis are off the hook.

So I'm not all in for J Street right now, but I'm thinking about it.

Gilad Shalit

Welcome home to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldeir kidnapped by Hamas and held for 5 years in captivity in Gaza before being released this week in exchange for 1000 Palestinian prisoners, many of them convicted murderers.

There's been lots of debate about whether Israel should have done the deal.  It's a steep price to pay, and of course encourages future kidnappings of more Israeli soldeirs and civilians.  It's certainly clear (as it has been before) that Israel "negotiates with terrorists", and it even came into the recent Republican debate, as candidates were asked about hypothetical deals for American prisoners.

But I have to wonder: does release of these murderers, even so many, really imperil Israel's security?  I've read that the true leaders were not among the released (Bargouthi being the most well-known).  But it seems to me that there is no shortage of young men and women in Gaza willing to die if only they can take some Jews with them into paradise.  I don't think a shortage of volunteers is what limits terrorism by Palestinians- it's opportunity and means.  It could be that letting out a bunch of grunts won't have much effect on the operational capability of Hamas or Fatah.

Just speculation from here- I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about these types of security matters, but those are my thoughts anyway.

Reflections on Atonement and Israel

In my Shul at Kol Nidre service, my Rabbi gave a lengthy sermon about sins, the Jewish people, and Israel that got me quite engaged, and not in a good way.  His sermon went something like this:

President Obama, in a recent speech, made the point that all of us in this reflective time of the year need to think about our sins and what we can do to contribute to the Peace Process.  So I was thinking about the "sins" of the Jewish People:
The "sin" of being different.  The "sin" of refusing to assimilate and be like everybody else.  The "sin" of being successful.  The "sin" of creating the wondrous state of Israel.

The Rabbi went on to describe the many great things Israel has done, the many ways in which Palestinians and Arabs have harmed the peace process, the Palestinian Authority's statements that Jews will not be welcome in a future Palestinian state even while Muslims are a key part of the Jewish state, etc.

It was an angry and defiant sermon, reflecting the bitterness of his perception that Israel is being unfairly targeted at the UN and that the Obama administration is insufficiently supportive of her positions.

As I've said before, I yield to nobody in my love and support for Israel.  I've spent time there, and I've sent money there.  But this angry response to the President continues to rankle me.  Under President Obama, the US has continued to support Israel militarily and through intelligence operations just as much as ever.  The US is set to veto the Palestinian bid for statehood, and is using all its diplomatic pull to try to stop the issue from coming to a vote.  Yes, Obama has put more pressure on Israel to stop expanding settlements in the West Bank- but I would argue that that still qualifies as a "pro Israel" position, and of course many Israelis (on the Left) completely agree and have urged the President to keep making the case.  My Rabbi and many others in the American Jewish community put too much emphasis on supporting Likud's positions as equaling support for Israel.  Obama hasn't done a great job in the Middle East- it's certainly not a signature issue for him- but to say that he doesn't support Israel is a slander.

But all that is parenthetical to my main reaction to the sermon, which is this: Yom Kippur is a time of self-reflection, a time to look inward and to question whether our own actions have lived up to the standards we set for ourselves.  It's not a time to put "sin" in scare quotes and angrily denounce the transgressions of others.  Our clergy can use every other Shabbat and holiday of the year to denounce Palestinians and take pride in the singular and spectacular accomplishment that is Israel.  On the Day of Atonement, we shouldn't be thinking about how we've been wronged. 

So in that spirit, I forgive my Rabbi this lapse, if for no other reason then because I know it comes from the part of him that loves Israel like I do.  And I beg forgiveness if I've misunderstood and slandered him by publishing this post.  As for Israel, I vow to support its existence and continued prosperity, even if that means criticizing its policies.

Another Gaza Flotilla

Well the international anti-Israel Left is preparing another flotilla to go to Gaza.  These stories don't make me proud to be a member of the Left- the inconsistency in this area is endemic and impervious to reason.  In Gaza you have a region ruled by an Islamic Theocracy that is officially and unofficially dedicated to the destruction of its more powerful neighbor, Israel.  The government of Gaza is holding an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, prisoner although he has been accused of no wrongdoing.  Homemade rockets are regularly launched on Israeli towns within range, targeting civilians.  Hamas is not willing to negotiate with Israel and not willing to make peace, since it is dedicated to Israel's destruction and the murder of all of its Jews.  Israel, in an attempt to keep its people safe, has a blockade set up trying to stop weapons from coming in.  The blockade has caused great hardship for people in Gaza, as many goods can't get through. 

Now it seems to me that the way to stop a blockade by a more powerful neighbor is to agree to stop trying to kill its people.  Since that's not an option for Hamas, the blockade continues.  It's unclear to me what the Leftist activists organizing the flotilla really want- peace would be nice of course, but their side in this war doesn't want peace.  The old Left has a knee-jerk response to suffering which is to take the side of the oppressed.  I tend to look at things that way too- I'm not very sympathetic to powerful forces (like big businesses fighting unions, for example) complaining about the unfair tactics of their weaker adversaries.  But we have to look deeper at the facts of the matter- you have a Palestinian polity that is openly dedicated to Israel's destruction and yet expects Israel to let them import materials that can be used for weapons.  It's insane.

So This article from The Nation really does it to me when it references the "...May 2010 flotilla, the same flotilla that included the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, which was attacked by Israeli commandos, who killed nine passengers."  I guess anti-Israel people don't want to dwell on the details of the 2010 incident.  To refresh memories, a bunch of ships were trying to run the Israeli blockade and all were boarded by Israeli commandos.  All but one were turned away without incident.  On the Mavi Marmara, however, "Israel said its marines were attacked by activists wielding metal bars, clubs and knives", and defended themselves.  The activists of course dispute this story, and the UN panel investigating it has yet to put out its findings. But the Israeli version of events is certainly plausible.  Then when you search YouTube a bit you can find actual footage of the Israeli version of events, confirming it beyond much doubt. 

Now if we Jews have learned nothing else from thousands of years of pogroms, discrimination, and extermination campaigns against us, it's that if you don't take care of yourself nobody else is going to do it for you. Jews are finished walking docilely to the gas chambers and letting history judge them as the Good Guys. Many in the international community really like the image of the Ghandian martyr facing his own death with dignity, in opposition to the bestial thugs doing the killing. But the martyr still ends up dead, and the posthumous praise is no comfort. 


It doesn't seem as if there's any way to convince the Left to change its view, so maybe Israel is doomed to become an international pariah.  And it would be preferable if Israel would stop building settlements in areas that will eventually need to come under Palestinian control.  But in the end, the country is going to defend itself.
Am Yisrael Chai.

Obama and Israel

My Conservative friends often challenge me about President Obama's policy in the Middle East and alleged hatred of Israel.  As a zionist myself, it's a tough subject; I hear that the overwhelming feeling in Israel is that Obama is bad for them, and that country yearns for a return of a strong "pro-Israel" president like George W. Bush.

It seems to me that Obama's Middle East policy hasn't done much to move the ball forward toward peace.  He seems to suffer from some naivete about the region, which is understandable given that it's never been a major focus of his throughout his career.  So his early focus on Israeli settlements in the West Bank (which I also oppose and believe are a barrier to peace) has not had the desired effect- Netanyahu and the Israeli Right has just dug in its heels more, and Palestinians have taken to demanding withdrawals from Settlements in order to come to the bargaining table.

On the other hand, I don't think American neo-con policies have really helped Israel either.  For all GWB's (clearly sincere) love of Israel, he was also ineffective in moving things in a positive direction.  In fact, the Iraq misadventure may have taken things in the opposite direction, and it appears Iran made lots of progress in developing their nuclear program under Bush's watch.  Maybe the real lesson is that progress in the Middle East is just really hard to make.  The greatest progress toward Israel's security was made during the Carter administration, when a peace treaty with Egypt was signed.  Now Carter isn't very friendly toward Israel, but his approach seemed to work pretty well (it didn't hurt that an Arab leader, Anwar Sadat, made a monumental and perhaps fatal decision to make peace during that time).

Now I'm not a single-issue voter, but if I thought American policies were going to destroy Israel, I guess I'd become one.

Yesterday I was talking with a wise relative who pointed out that just because Netanyahu is disgusted with the US president, that doesn't mean there's a dispute with Israel per se.  The dispute is more between Obama and the Israeli Right, which happens to be ascendent right now there.  So today I looked around for what the Israeli Left is saying about BHO- it's not quite so negative.

(JTA) -- Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni praised President Obama’s Middle East policy speech and warned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was opening a rift with the United States by criticizing it.

"An American president that supports a two-state solution represents the Israeli interest and is not anti-Israeli," Livni, the leader of Israel’s Kadima Party, said on Friday. "President Obama's call to start negotiations represents Israel's interests."

She said that “a prime minister that harms the relationship with the U.S. over something unsubstantial is harming Israel's security and deterrence.” According to The Jerusalem Post, Livni said that such a prime minister should resign.

"I am saying this loud and clear," she said.

Her stance was criticized by Otniel Schneller, a Knesset member from her Kadima Party.

“Obama’s speech has placed before Israeli society and its representatives the challenge of unity and national agreement,” Schneller said. “The political disagreements and aspiration of the opposition parties should not overpower their responsibility for the future of the state.”

One item, granted, but I'm glad to see that some in Israel see things the way I do.

The President's Israel-Palestine Speech

I think this section from Yossi Klein Ha-Levi's New Republic piece on Obama's latest Middle East initiative is spot on:

...to be an ambivalent Israeli is to be torn between two conflicting certainties. As an ambivalent Israeli, I know that a Palestinian state is an existential necessity for me—saving Israel from the untenable choice between being a Jewish and a democratic state, from the moral erosion of occupation, from the growing movement to again turn the Jews, via the Jewish state, into the symbol of evil.
But I also know that a Palestinian state is an existential threat to me—forcing Israel back into eight-mile-wide borders between Palestine and the Mediterranean Sea, with the center of the country vulnerable to rocket attacks from the West Bank hills that overlook it.

This is the fundamental dilemna for Israel.  The Palestinians are not a negotiating partner at this time- Hamas is still dedicated to Israel's destruction, and therefore peace with that entity can not really be considered (not that Hamas would consider it anyway).  But endless occupation and subjugation of  millions of Palestinians can not be accepted either.  When Left and Right argue about this, they invariably talk around each other: "We have no partner for peace!" .... "We can't continue to occupy people without giving them rights!".  Both statements are true.

The Jewish Right along with the more general US Right has followed the lead of Bibi Netanyahu and condemned Obama's speech yesterday as a cave-in to Palestinian demands.  This seems preposterous to me when looking at what he actually said.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

That just doesn't sound to me like "throwing Israel under the bus".  It sounds like what everyone knows has to be the basis of eventual peace.  I mean everyone: Ehud Olmert, Avigdor Lieberman, past American negotiators, George W. Bush, basically everyone.  (These links are all to Jeffrey Goldberg's blog, which has lots of great posts up on the topic).  It acknowledges Israel's major dilemna I started off with, and tries to square the circle as best as it can be squared.

My question for the Right is this: What is your plan for long-term peace and prosperity between Israel and the Palestinians?  There are over 4 million Palestinians living in West Bank and Gaza, under occupation.  If we can never trust the Arabs to make peace, then what are we going to do with these people?

Of course, someone on the Left can be asked: What makes you think we can trust the Palestinians enough to allow them sovereignty, given their history of terrorism and implacable opposition to our very existence? 

My answer is this: right now we can't trust them.  But forever is a long time.  Israelis should openly acknowledge what it will take to make peace happen, even if they know it's not possible now.  When I was growing up, the violence in Northern Ireland had been going on for centuries and looked like it would never end.  Now there's peace there.  South Africa looked like a hopeless case- and then there was an orderly transition to Black rule.  Things change, sometimes when we don't expect it (look at the "Arab Spring" we've just seen and could never have predicted).  Israel's position should be the one Obama enunciated: sovereignty and land for peace and security.  After all, in the long run, what other option is there?

Goldstone Changes His Tune

I find this completely shocking, and I mean that in a good way.  Judge Goldstone, who wrote a UN report that was very critical of Israel in the aftermath of the Gaza action, accusing Israel of war crimes, has now written an op-ed in the Washington Post that at least partially absolves Israel of many of the most serious charges, and takes Hamas to task for its targeting of civilians in Israel.  It reads the way I would have liked the Goldstone Report to read in the first place. 

He blames Israel's lack of cooperation for his initial conclusions.  I don't really buy it.  Still, I give the guy credit for coming around in a very public way and correcting the record.  Good for him.

Egypt

Great stuff going on in Egypt.  That doesn't mean it's going to end great, mind you, but it's exciting right now, that's for sure.

Lots of fear coming from some quarters (particularly on the Right and among some pro-Israel groups) that the Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over and lead Egypt right out of the Sadat-Begin peace treaty and into war with Israel.  Now this fear is legitimate, but it sounds like (from what I'm reading) there are plenty of secular and liberal forces likely to take power. 

Here's the thing: dictators don't last forever.  They always die eventually, and their heirs usually don't carry on for too many generations before a revolution or at least a coup bubbles up.  This Egypt regime was going down pretty soon (Mubarek is in his 80s, after all), and there were so many possible ways it could have gone down- this way seems as good an outcome as many.

In the end, this isn't about us.  The United States has nothing to do with this uprising.  Any meddling (except behind the scenes, but we'll never know about that) would have just empowered the bad guys in this, and I think Obama's passivity in the face of the Tahir Square protests was proven to be the right course.  Sometimes our best option is to get out of the way and let nature take its course.  How fascinating that the neocons' vision of a democratic Middle East might come to pass after all, due to internal Arab protest rather than overwhelming US military force.  Who would've thunk it?

Israel and a "One State Solution" (posted by DT)

Here's an opinion piece in the New York Times that is so many kinds of wrong that it's hard to know where to start:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/a-one-to-two-state-solution/

So for your reading pleasure, here's my fisking of this idiotic piece: (My comments in Blue)

This week’s bad news from the West Bank — the resumption of settlement construction after a 10-month moratorium, just as a new round of peace talks had gotten underway — didn’t much dampen optimism among seasoned Middle East watchers.

That’s because there wasn’t much optimism to dampen. For the past few years, more and more people who follow these things have been saying that the perennial goal of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks — a two-state solution — will never be reached in any event.

These experts fall into two camps.

The more upbeat, while pessimistic about a two-state solution, hold out hope for a “one-state solution”: Israel gains uncontested possession of the West Bank and Gaza but gives Palestinians who live there the vote, and Israel evolves from a Jewish state into a stable and peaceful secular state.
A One State Solution means the end of the Jewish state, which is the whole point of Israel. The only experts in favor of a One State Solution are those who are opposed to the existence of Israel. To imagine that Jews would be safe in an Arab-dominated state, given the recent history of the Middle East, is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
People in the other camp — the pure, 100-percent pessimists — say that even if such a thing could work, even if a democracy with about as many Arabs as Jews could function, it isn’t going to happen; most Israelis would never admit a large and growing Arab population to the electorate.
Agreed!
For a peace deal to happen, Israel’s centrists need to get jarred out of their indifference.
But there’s a third possibility that nobody ever talks about. Pursuing a one-state solution could actually lead to a two-state solution. Instead of following the current road map to a Palestinian state, maybe we can get there by detour.
This seems to be implying that the impediment to peace in Israel/Palestine is "Israel's centrists".
One key to working up enthusiasm for this detour is to get clear on the nature of the roadblock.

It’s common to say that Israel’s intransigence on the settlements issue reflects the growing strength of the right, especially the religious fundamentalists who do much of the settling. But at least as big a problem as the zeal of the radicals is the apathy of the moderates.
Now here's where things start to get crazy. Look, I'm dead-set against settlements deep in the West Bank, and I think they're antithetical to peace; an unnecessary barrier. But settlements are not the primary obstacle to peace. The primary obstacle is that Palestinians continue to reject the legitimacy of the Jewish state, and continue to act and speak as if they intend to do nothing less than kill every Jew in Israel.
A recent Time magazine cover story — “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” — explained why many Israelis just don’t think a peace deal is all that important: they’ve already got peace. Ever since Israel built its security wall, they’ve been safe from suicide bombers, and homemade rockets from Gaza can’t reach them. They’re prosperous to boot. What’s not to like?
A more accurate description of this phenomenon is that Israelis have decided that Palestinians are not a legitimate partner for peace at this time, so they're trying to make the best of it while waiting and hoping that something changes.
So long as this attitude prevails, the far right will have veto power over policy in the occupied territory. For a peace deal to happen, Israel’s centrists need to get jarred out of their indifference. Someone needs to scare these people.

There’s a way for Palestinians to do that — and not the usual way, with bombs and rockets. Quite the opposite.

If Palestinians want to strike fear into the hearts of Israelis they should (a) give up on violence as a tool of persuasion; (b) give up on the current round of negotiations; and (c) start holding demonstrations in which they ask for only one thing: the right to vote. Their argument would be simple: They live under Israeli rule, and Israel is a democracy, so why aren’t they part of it?
Let's put aside that this prescription is utterly unrealistic. The Palestinians have shown no signs of any willingness to give up on violence-ever. But if they ever did follow this plan they wouldn't "strike fear into the hearts of Israelis"- the Jews would be thrilled! It would take lots of stops and starts, and yes, lots of internal struggles with the Messianic Right in Israel, but Palestinians would indeed get their state this way- and they'd deserve it! The continuing violence is the whole reason that the Israeli center has turned away from the peace process- if you stop the violence, you get them on board again- you don't need any subtle byzantine plan to do it, it's pretty straightforward!
A truly peaceful movement with such elemental aspirations — think of Martin Luther King or Gandhi — would gain immediate international support. In Europe and the United States, leftists would agitate in growing numbers for economic and political pressure on Israel.
They wouldn't have to, because Israelis would negotiate very happily. Again, Palestinian violence and rejectionism is the main impediment to peace, not settlements.
In 2002, some Harvard students urged the university to purge investments in Israel from its portfolio, and the president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, suggested that the disinvestment movement was anti-Semitic. This time there would be a lot more students, and no university president would call them anti-Semitic. All they’d be saying is that if Israel isn’t going to give up the occupied territories — and, let’s face it, the current government isn’t exactly in headlong pursuit of that goal — it should give Arabs living there the same rights it gives Jews living there.
Past Israeli governments have been willing to give up the West Bank in exchange for peace, and there's no reason future ones wouldn't do the same, if conditions warranted it. The Right is in control in Israel now, but it's a democracy and leadership will change again.
As momentum grew — more Palestinians marching, more international support for them, thus more Palestinians marching, and so on — the complacent Israeli center would get way less complacent. Suddenly facing a choice between a one-state solution and international ostracism, reasonable Israelis would develop a burning attraction to a two-state solution — and a sudden intolerance for religious zealots who stood in the way of it. Before long Israel would be pondering two-state deals more generous than anything that’s been seriously discussed to date.

Obviously, neutralizing Israeli extremists wouldn’t get rid of all obstacles to peace. For one thing, there are the Palestinian extremists. They could sabotage peaceful progress with attention-grabbing violence, and Hamas, in particular, has shown as much. But that problem, which looms large on the current road to peace, would loom smaller on the detour.
You probably get the point by now, but of course this paragraph, a throwaway in the article, really gets at the heart of the matter. It's the main issue.
For starters, if a peaceful suffrage movement gave Palestinians the vigorous international support they’ve long sought, it would be hard for Hamas to conspicuously oppose it.

Besides, given the Arab birth rate, for Arabs to get the vote would theoretically put them on the path toward effective control of Israel, which is exactly what Hamas says it wants. It would be kind of awkward for Hamas to stand in the way of that.

Of course, once Israel started talking seriously about a two-state deal, Hamas could revert to fierce opposition. But if indeed the deal being discussed was more generous than those discussed in the past, the success of the Palestinian peace movement would be undeniable. Hamas might persist in its obstructionism, but it would have less support than it has now. That’s progress.
Aaaahhhh, if only I could agree. I wish Hamas could be so easily marginalized. I'm still an optimist that someday there will be peace; but it's not coming that fast, and Hamas isn't going away that easily.
Given the ongoing damage done to America’s national security by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s in America’s interest for Israelis to feel intensely eager for a two-state deal. And some do.

As for the others: if they really grasped their predicament, they’d be intensely eager as well. The menu of futures for Israel features only three items: (1) two-state solution; (2) one-state solution; (3) something really, really horrible. There’s just no way that the situation will simmer indefinitely without boiling over, whether via nuclear bomb (purchased by terrorists from cash-hungry North Korea, say), or via a tit-for-tat exchange with Hamas or Hezbollah that spins out of control, bringing a devastating regional war, or via some other path to catastrophe.
Israelis would love to see a 2-state solution. It's been the policy of the Israeli government since 1947. What I find most obscene about this article is that this (kind of important) detail is completely left out.
Sooner or later, something will alert Israel’s unfortunately silent majority to the high price of leaving the Palestinian issue unresolved. The only question is whether by then the price will have already been paid.

Postscript: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has in the past mentioned the one-state prospect in a way that shows he understands its potential to strengthen Israel’s incentive to negotiate. But regional experts tell me that in general officials on the Palestinian side don’t welcome a one-state solution because that would deprive them of the power they have now, whereas they would remain prominent during the implementation of a two-state solution. So don’t expect Palestinian officials to initiate give-us-the-vote marches; even if they saw that such marches could wind up leading to a two-state solution, they’d probably fear any potentially strong movement that they don’t control. If a peaceful suffrage movement takes shape, it will be a grass-roots movement, perhaps supported by international nongovernmental organizations.
I think the Palestinian polity has made it pretty clear that it wants a one state solution, with all the Jews pushed into the Mediterranean. Not my favorite solution to the problem.