311 -Big Time Buyer's Remorse: Unraveling the West Bank
Arab Americans in Dearborn and Hamtramck, Michigan, and elsewhere refused to vote for Kamala Harris because the Biden administration continued to supply weapons to Israel despite the enormous carnage and massive loss of Arab lives in the Gaza Strip. But, not at all surprisingly, Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's far extreme right finance minister and many of his cabinet colleagues are now entreating the incoming Trump cohort to let them expunge the already occupied West Bank (what is left of Palestine) of Arabs. Smotrich wants to fold the entire West Bank into Israel -- from the sea to the river.
The “only way to remove” the “threat” of a Palestinian state “is to apply Israeli sovereignty over the entire settlements in Judea and Samaria," said Smotrich.
This is exactly the kind of foreign policy lunacy that Trump could back. He is known as a firm supporter of the far right in Israel, not least of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and could by not objecting or simply nodding easily back Smotrich's most catastrophic ambitions. It has long been the dream of Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and the other extremists upon whose support Netanyahu's hold on power relies, to erase the West Bank and open it even more broadly than now to Israeli penetration. Already 500,000 Israelis live in illegal settlements in the West Bank, separated by special roads and no-go rules from the 5 million Palestinians who have resided there ever since Jordan, Syria, and Egypt lost their 1967 war against Israel and forfeited control of all of Jerusalem and the territory between Israel and Jordan.
The Oslo Accord of 1993 envisaged the establishment of a Palestinian Authority that would assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestine Liberation Organization renounced terrorism and recognized Israel as a legitimate state with a "right to exist in peace." Permanent status talks were meant to be held to elaborate upon the provisions of the Accord, but never did. Palestine, a putative nation alongside Israel, was envisioned by the negotiators of the Oslo agreement. That is, Oslo provided the makings of a potentially viable two-state solution and to Israel's existential place within a hostile Arab environment. Smotrich and company now want to undo the Oslo Accord and reinstate a presumed (but ahistorical) Biblical narrative.
Smotrich's design has many flaws: 1) Where would the Palestinians go? Jordan, where at least half of its population is composed of Palestinians who fled Israel, wants no more refugees. Its monarchy would lose control in the Hashemite kingdom if Palestinians represented a super-majority of the population.
2) Israel would have to construct a full apartheid state, with a large Bantustan for Palestinians, if it "took" the West Bank. Five million Palestinians would become Israeli citizens overnight and would vote alongside the 2.1 million Arabs who already are Israeli citizens and vote in elections. (Jewish Israelis only number 7 million.) Since Smotrich et al hardly contemplate an equitable annexation of the West Bank that would further a one-state solution to post-Hamas problems, heavy segregation and apartheid could be the only result. The Palestinians have no place to go. And why should they leave their homes and what the Oslo Accord promised?
3) Furthermore, Smotrich's plan would sabotage the Abraham Accords, promoted by Trump during his first presidential term. In effect, they arranged the recognition of Israel by Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, with the strong possibility that Saudi Arabia would also exchange ambassadors with Israel, revolutionizing the Middle East. Hamas attacked Israel last year in part to prevent just that result. Smotrich's proposal would put the final nail in the Abraham Accords' coffin and do Hamas' work for it.
4) What Smotrich proposes is absolutely illegal, according to the European Union's foreign policy chief, Josep Burrell: “Such rhetoric undermines international law, violates Palestinians’ rights and threatens any prospects for a 2-state solution.”
Despite all of these commonsensical obstacles to the realization of the Smotrich dream (widely supported by Israel's ultra-orthodox establishment, plus the Mizrahi far right), Trump could easily encourage such a disaster. Sen. Marco Rubio, likely to be confirmed easily as Secretary of State, could hardly be expected to raise a contrary voice. After all, he will be Trump's foreign policy poodle, in office to execute and sanitize his boss' wildest transactional maneuvers.
A number of senators, even Republican ones, will know that giving way to the wild ideas of the Israeli far right will cause enormous trouble in the Middle East and globally, but Trump might tilt toward Smotrich if Netanyahu endorses (as is likely) such wild and dangerous initiatives. Persons like Elise Stefanik, Trump's pick for Ambassador to the United Nations, could hardly cavil either, even if she became aware of how fraught with problems the execution of such a maneuver could be. But at least Trump is moving her, antagonist of university presidents, out of an influential position in the House of Representatives. Moreover, her erstwhile constituents along Lake Champlain in New York's 21st Congressional district, will be able to elect a new Republican with more modulated instincts.
Trump also announced that Mike Huckabee would be the U. S. ambassador to Israel. As a former governor and an evangelical Christian, he is without credentials other being a Trumper. Smotrich et al will try to capture his support for their wild endeavors and could easily succeed.
Which brings us back to Dearborn and Hamtramck, with their Arab American majorities. Have they gained at all by the outcome of the U. S. election? Will the president who in his first incarnation threatened to bar Muslims from entering the U. S., and now promises to deport millions of illegal immigrants, advance the full interests of such residents of Michigan or, indeed of one-time majority residents of decaying former manufacturing towns like Lawrence, MA, and Paterson, NJ? Those last two cities house thousands of recent Hispanic immigrants, many of whom voted for Trump. Will their outcomes be improved? Will their relatives who might want to join previous immigrant waves to Paterson and Lawrence be accepted, or deported, by the new administration? And will shortages of immigrant workers destroy whatever remains of U.S. growth and prosperity?
To be hopeful and positive, the filibuster rule in the Senate will enable Democrats to slow or stall many radical initiatives. The closely divided House will also give Democrats a little leverage on certain kinds of legislation. But, count on it, the next four years will see a constant battle between dangerous domestic and foreign policy foolishness and more rational behavior and outcomes. Where is Eva Peron to sing for our needs, not Argentina's?