I'm increasingly convinced that this misreading is one of the critical mistakes. No one actually knows the answer to the question, how would the Palestinians react to a two state solution, until it's tried, seriously.
Well, a two-state solution was seriously offered, and Arafat treated as something the Israelis wanted so badly that they would pay any price for it.
My own guess is that the sigh of relief extending throughout much of the ME would be so large, given enough time to take hold seriously, that the one's who didn't accept it would be very, very few. Some still would not. But they would have a much more difficult time gaining support (followers and money) than before.
First, you are not allowing for the usefulness of the conflict to the various dictators of the ME. As Tom Friedman says, "50 years ago the leaders of SE Asia said to their people, support our dictatorship and we'll give you prosperity. Now they have prosperity and political conditions are easing. 50 years ago the Arab leaders said to their people, support our dictatorship and we'll give you the Arab/Israeli conflict. Now 50 years on, they're poorer than ever, but they still have the Arab/Israeli conflict."
Second, you are not allowing for ideology. Do you think the Islamists are a fringe group, that the mullahs who every week call the Jews "sons of monkeys and pigs" and call for Israel's destruction don't really mean it? Do you think Hizbullah (who now own a fiefdom in Lebanon) are going to say, just kidding, we didn't mean it about liberating Palestine in a sea of blood? And what about Hamas, PIJ, Al Aqsa?
The first group has the power and the second group has the only ideology in the Arab world that hasn't (yet) been proven a total loser. Both groups have the guns. The majority of Arabs who would just like to get on with their lives don't have power and they don't have guns and they are just keeping their heads down. |
