+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Can a broad Palestinian civil rights campaign forge the way to peace?

The ongoing hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners signals a potential new direction toward a resolution to the conflict. But the success of such an approach rests on how Israel chooses to respond.

By Paul R. Pillar

A Palestinian youth living in Israel waves a Palestinian flag during protest against the attack on Gaza in the city of Lod, Israel, August 3, 2014. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

A Palestinian youth living in Israel waves a Palestinian flag during protest against the attack on Gaza in the city of Lod, Israel, August 3, 2014. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

President Trump’s expressed desire to resolve, somehow, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is welcome, but the grounds for skepticism about this outweigh the reasons for hope. The principal reason for skepticism is the lack of evidence that Trump has distanced himself politically from the position, embodied in the right-wing Israeli government and its most ardent American supporters, that favors perpetual Israeli control of the occupied territories and, despite occasional lip service to the contrary, sees no room for Palestinian self-determination or a Palestinian state.

As a presidential candidate, Trump assumed this position after coming to terms with Sheldon Adelson and adopting AIPAC’s talking points as his own. As president, this position was manifested in his appointing as ambassador to Israel his bankruptcy lawyer, a hard-right supporter of the Israeli settlement project in the occupied territories. This week, in a joint appearance at the White House with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, Trump talked in general terms about working together to reach an agreement to live in peace, and in more specific terms about defeating ISIS and security cooperation with Israel, but said nothing at all about Palestinian self-determination or a Palestinian state.

One might also wonder whether this issue will be another one that gets the amateur hour treatment, in which the president comes to admit that, gee, this task is harder than he expected it to be. With his bankruptcy lawyer having been sent off as ambassador, Trump has turned the Israeli-Palestinian policy portfolio over to his son-in-law and his real estate lawyer. Of course, given the many years of meager results on this subject when in the hands of supposedly experienced professionals, it might not hurt to see what the amateurs and some fresh eyes might accomplish. The real estate lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, received favorable marks from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides during a recent listening tour he made to the region.

But with the learning process for this president and this administration starting almost from scratch, Trump’s effort may already be behind the times. The ground has changed, and changed unfavorably, during all those years of unsuccessful peace processing. A substantial body of opinion, including opinions of many knowledgeable observers, holds that a two-state solution may already be out of reach. Other observers hold a different opinion. It is, of course, the unilateral creation of facts on the ground, in the form of Israeli colonization through settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem—something else that Trump did not mention in his appearance this week with Abbas—that may have put a two-state solution out of reach.

The meeting with Abbas had, for similar reasons, an obsolete quality. Yes, the U.S. president must talk with Abbas in any serious attempt to make progress in resolving this conflict. But Abbas is well past his “best if used by” date. Events have been passing his part of the Palestinian leadership by, just as they have been passing by any would-be peacemakers whose understanding of the problem is based on where things stood a couple of decades ago. Abbas has been in his position for several years beyond what was supposed to be his term of office, and in that regard his continued hanging around without benefit of re-election is an affront to the idea of democratic rule for Palestinians. He has lost much support from the Palestinian populace, a reflection of his failure to make any progress in removing from his people the yoke of Israeli occupation. Saying this is not to cast aspersion on the character, objectives, or good will of Abbas. Rather, it is a consequence of the awkward situation thrust upon the strange entity known as the Palestinian Authority, which was supposed to be only a temporary transitional device when established in the early 1990s under the Oslo Accords. Transition to Palestinian sovereignty never occurred, and many Palestinians subsequently came to see the PA, with good reason, as mainly an auxiliary administrator of the Israeli occupation.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivers a speech on the second day of the seventh Fatah Congress, November 30, 2016, Ramallah. (Flash90)

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivers a speech on the second day of the seventh Fatah Congress, November 30, 2016, Ramallah. (Flash90)

If the Palestinian people are to have a brighter future, it might need to be reached through taking another direction. We may be seeing a hint of that direction in the current hunger strike among Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. This protest is led by Marwan Barghouti, whom many have long seen as a more credible and charismatic leader than Abbas or anyone else in the PA. Barghouti has been described as the Palestinian Mandela; but because there does not seem to be an Israeli de Klerk among those in power in Israel, Barghouti’s stature as the most credible leader of a future Palestinian state is all the more reason for Israelis opposed to creating any such state to keep him securely locked up. The hunger strike is about conditions in prison, but it sets an example for peaceful, nonviolent protest against debilitating conditions that Israeli control imposes on all Palestinians. That raises the possibility of a major alternative to a push for a two-state solution: a struggle for equal rights for all in a single state embracing all the territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

On the subject of alternative leadership to the PA, one also has to mention Hamas, which tries to administer affairs in the Gaza Strip just as the PA tries to do so in portions of the West Bank. Israel refuses to have any dealings with Hamas (except for negotiations about prisoner swaps), while affixing the terrorist label on Hamas and complaining about its lack of explicit recognition of Israel. Maintaining the miserable status of Gaza as an open air prison, including a substantial proportion of the Palestinian population while keeping it separate from the rest of Palestine, helps the Israeli government overcome the problem of how to cling to all the other territory that it wants to keep between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River without facing, at least for a while, the prospect of a Jewish minority in a state with an Arab majority.

Hamas’s recent release of a document softening some of its formal positions did not really tell us much new, because the group’s leadership had already made clear that it seeks political power in a Palestinian state on the territory Israel seized in 1967 and that it is quite willing to live alongside, and have an indefinite hudna or peace with, the State of Israel. If founding charters and lack of explicit recognition really matter, then Hamas’s positions ought not to cause any more problem than the platform of Likud, the dominant party in the ruling Israeli coalition, which explicitly rejects the very concept of a Palestinian state, strongly declares the intention to hang onto all of “Eretz Israel,” and dismisses the PLO—the Palestinian negotiating party at Oslo—as an ”organization of assassins.” And if one is to take the “once a terrorist, always a terrorist” approach, then we should never have had anything to do with former terrorists Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir even after they became prime ministers of Israel.

Palestinian youth stand inside a mock prison cell during a demonstration in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli jails, Nablus, West Bank, May 8, 2017. (Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90)

Palestinian youth stand inside a mock prison cell during a demonstration in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli jails, Nablus, West Bank, May 8, 2017. (Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90)

As for that question of whether a two-state solution is still feasible, perhaps we should not think of one-state and two-states as entirely separate options. Acting on the former might be what is needed to rescue the latter, and here’s why. If the prisoners’ hunger strike really were to foreshadow a much broader, and continuing, peaceful campaign on behalf of political and civil rights for all Palestinian Arabs under Israeli control, this would be a deeply discomfiting development for members of the Israeli right wing, and not only because most of them do not want to live in such a fully mixed state (with or without Gaza). The campaign itself would throw them off balance.

Peaceful protest could not plausibly be dismissed as terrorism. All the allegedly destabilizing and threatening attributes of a Palestinian state would be irrelevant arguments because a separate Palestinian state would not be what was ostensibly sought. The appropriate role for Abbas and the Palestinian Authority would be to announce the PA’s dissolution, hand the keys to Area A of the West Bank back to Israel, and state the obvious: that nothing is being accomplished by the PA continuing to be a handmaiden to the occupation. Israel would be confronted, before its own citizens and before the world community, more squarely than ever before with the question of whether it wants democracy or wants apartheid.

This prospect might be disturbing enough for even land-craving Israeli rightists to adjust their ambitions about land and to get serious about negotiating a two-state solution—before the Israeli settlement project gets to a point at which all objective observers would agree that it has put a two-state solution beyond reach.

At least, that’s an optimistic scenario. A more pessimistic scenario, even if a large peaceful civil rights campaign were to get rolling, is that the Israeli leadership would fall back on its live-by-the-sword instincts and would find ways to use its instruments of violence to upset the peaceful bandwagon. Because the stoicism of no people is infinite, there would be violence in response on the other side, and we would be back to another round of the same deadly cycle that has gone on for decades.

Probably the pessimistic scenario is the more likely one as long as power in Israel is in hands similar to those that hold power now, and as long as U.S. policy continues to provide cover for Israeli behavior that evades the tough questions about democracy and apartheid. Confronting that aspect of U.S. policy, and not just relying on inflated views of one’s deal-making ability, is required if the new would-be peacemakers are to have any chance of success.

Paul R. Pillar, a former CIA official, is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University.

This article was first published by the National Interest and is reprinted here with permission. Copyright The National Interest. Photo: Jason Greenblatt and Donald Trump.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Grandpa Frost

      It’s very simple for the “Palestinians” to achieve peace. Stop trying to kill Jews!

      This despicable movement simply has nothing to say in its defense. Their murderous techniques have been copied by terrorists around the world. Now, you have the intifada in places like London, Paris and NYC.

      It’s time for civilized people world over to unite against this savagery!

      And if you get triggered by this, remember, facts don’t care about your feelings!

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        “Ten Myths About Israel” by Ilan Pappe. page 43: “The official Israeli narrative or foundational mythology refuses to allow the Palestinians even a modicum of moral rights to resist the Jewish colonization of their homeland that began in 1882. From the very beginning, Palestinian resistance was depicted as motivated by hate for Jews. It was accused of promoting a protean anti-Semitic campaign of terror that began when the first settlers arrived…the diaries of the early Zionists tell a different story. They are full of anecdotes revealing how the settlers were well received by the Palestinians, who offered them shelter and in many cases taught them how to cultivate the land. Only when it became clear that the settlers had not come to live in peace alongside the native population, but in place of it, did the Palestinian resistance begin. And when that resistance started, it quickly took the form of every other anticolonialist struggle”

        (there are footnotes)

        Reply to Comment
        • Grandpa Frost

          Bruce, do you seriously think that the ramblings of this pseudo-intellectual in any way refute my statement? Anyway, let’s break it down.

          1. The Palestinian identity came into existence in the 1970s. The very fact that Pappe refers to those people as “Palestinians” is a dishonest attempt to invent history that never was. And if you are going to claim otherwise, I’d like to see proof.

          2. There is no evidence that early Zionists ever intended to displace anyone. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The so called “Nakhba”, as well as the Jewish refugee crisis (which was a disaster on a much grater scale, I might add) came as the result of Arab aggression of 1948. And again, I’d like to see the evidence to the contrary.

          3. Pappe states: “From the very beginning, Palestinian resistance was depicted as motivated by hate for Jews. It was accused of promoting a protean anti-Semitic campaign of terror that began when the first settlers arrived…the diaries of the early Zionists tell a different story. They are full of anecdotes revealing how the settlers were well received by the Palestinians, who offered them shelter and in many cases taught them how to cultivate the land.” Of course the violence, that Pappe erroneously refers to as “resistance” was motivated by the hate of the Jews! And let’s be honest, this hatred was purely religiously motivated, as is the religiously motivated violence we are witnessing around the world! Pappe further goes on to state that there were many examples of cooperation between the Zionists and the “Palestinians.” Well, of course there were! Just like there are today! It just goes to show that not every Muslim takes his or her scriptures seriously!

          4. Pappe further states: “…And when that resistance started, it quickly took the form of every other anticolonialist struggle”” Now, what Pappe seems to be implying here is that the despicable atrocities perpetrated by Brown people against White people are somehow justified, because those atrocities are a part of some “anti-colonialist struggle.” I know that this is the standard leftist position, and clearly Pappe is speaking to his fellow leftists here. The problem with this position is that it’s morally and intellectually bankrupt. Atrocities are atrocities, and they are not justified against anybody. Furthermore, it’s utterly ludicrous to present the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland as “colonialism.” Colonialism implies the existence of a colonial power on whose behalf the colonists are acting. Prey tell, who is the colonial power in this situation? There is much more to be said about this drivel posing as scholarship, though, I think I’ll stop here.

          Reply to Comment
          • Terence O'Donoghue

            Balmour Declaration of 1918 referring to the area as Palestine? People from Britain are British, people from Palestine and Palestinian and people from Idiocracy and Idiots.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Ben

      “…“land-craving Israeli rightists…”

      Tomer Persico:

      “According to Feiglin’s model, maintaining hold of territories is not a question of security but a question of identity. A truly Jewish identity can be realized only through the holding of any occupied territories in the Land of Israel. Those, on the other hand, who wish to return such territories are trying to sabotage Jewish identity and replace it with “a new Israeli identity.”


      Reply to Comment
    3. Ben

      Ehud Barak (May, 2017): “In contrast [to the responsible left], the right wing, whose deep, true motivation is the “wholeness of the land” before – and even at the expense of – the “wholeness of the people,” seeks to evade political decisions until construction outside the “settlement blocs” has created an irreversible situation. The chimes of imminent redemption resonate in their ears. They are voiding the “security principle,” which they adopted, of many of its components, by reducing its contents to issues of weapons emplacement and topography; by shutting their eyes to other aspects of security and to the aspect of time; and by ignoring the broad expert agreement on the compatibility of Israel’s security needs and interests with the paradigm of the “two-state” solution, when the time comes. Above all, the right wing is at fault in ignoring the fact that a security concept should stem from a realistic, expert comparison of alternatives and risks, subject to the reality principle, and not a thrust for a predetermined faith-based solution.
      read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.788659

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben


        “Ehud Barak the book critic has coined a new term: the “responsible left.” After the failure of the Zionist left – it’s time to admit it – comes Barak’s new left. But the former prime minister is neither a backslapper nor a leftist. His responsible left is nothing but a cover for maintaining ultranationalism, the security cult, the status quo and its (terrifying) resemblance to the ruling right wing.”
        read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.788949

        Reply to Comment
    4. i_like_ike52

      I don’t understand what the writer is saying.. on the one hand, he says negotiations and agreements with Abbas would be welcome, but then he turns around and says he has constitutional authority to make agreements with Israel since he term ended years ago. He also adds that he is viewed as corrupt and ineffective by the Palestinian public, and then he tops it off by mentioning the fact that Gaza is controlled by HAMAS. So what is the real situation? Is there are real partner or not?

      Regarding the dreamed of “Palestinian non-violent resistance movement” I would have to ask has any such similar movement had any effect in any other Arab country. It was thought the Arab Spring disturbances of 2011 seemed to herald a change, but Mubarak was not really ousted by street demonstration, but rather the ruling military clique used them as an excuse to get rid of him which they wanted to do in any event. We see what happened in Syria and what “peaceful protests” led to there (Tunisia does seem to be an exception but their apparent success in ousting a dictator and then having democratic elections have not been repeated elsewhere).
      So we see there is no real precedent for such a protest movement in the Arab world and the Palestinians don’t have a model to follow, even if they wanted to, which is doubtful

      Reply to Comment
    5. i_like_ike52

      Regarding the possibility of a “non-violent” Palestinian movement getting real traction under a widely-accepted leadership, it is only necessary to point out that the most popular next-generation leader of the Palestinians is convicted murderer Barghouti (one of his victims was a girl who had attended my synagogue). Why? Precisely because being a murderer he has credibility. In local elections, the recently elected new mayor of Hevron is also a murderer, who gunned down six civilians in Hevron. He is viewed as a great hero. That is no doubt his big selling point to his voters. So does anyone really think a “Gandhian”-type figure would ever be respected by the Palestinian public? Or would he be condemned as a traitor who is trying to neutralize the Palestinian “resistance”?

      Reply to Comment
      • duh

        An amateur might try to counter this argument by pointing out Begin was behind the King David Hotel bombing or that Rabin ordered the forced march from Lydda. But considering Herzl attempted to enlist the aid of professional pacifists like Otto von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm, I just wonder if a non-violent Zionist state was ever possible.

        Reply to Comment
    6. Ben

      Of course, it’s inconvenient to mention that any peaceful protest in the territories is immediately shut down, violently, and with alacrity and operational precision, or prevented from happening altogether, by Israel. Ike wonders why no baby is yet born when the Israelis have been using five different methods of contraception simultaneously, not taking any chances. And practicing strangling in the crib for the ones that get through. People these days who have trouble conceiving go to fertility specialists. Israel is the un-fertility specialist.

      Reply to Comment