The Future of Palestine
John J. Mearsheimer
1.Mai 1431 (2010)
professor says that Gaza and the West Bank will be incorporated into
a 'Greater Israel,' which will be an Apartheid state similar to
white-ruled South Africa [Getty]
The following is an excerpt
from the The Hisham Sharabi Memorial Lecture delivered by Professor John Mearsheimer
at the Palestine Center in Washington D.C. on April 29, 2010.
The Future of Palestine:
Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners
...There is going to be a
Greater Israel between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. In fact, I
would argue that it already exists. But who will live there and what
kind of political system will it have?
It is not going to be a
democratic bi-national state, at least in the near future. An overwhelming
majority of Israel’s Jews have no interest in living in a state that would
be dominated by the Palestinians. And that includes young Israeli Jews,
many of whom hold clearly racist views toward the Palestinians in their
midst. Furthermore, few of Israel’s supporters in the United States
are interested in this outcome, at least at this point in time. Most
Palestinians, of course, would accept a democratic bi-national state without
hesitation if it could be achieved quickly. But that is not going to
happen, although as I will argue shortly, it is likely to come to pass down
Then there is ethnic
cleansing, which would certainly mean that Greater Israel would have a
Jewish majority. But that murderous strategy seems unlikely, because
it would do enormous damage to Israel’s moral fabric, its relationship with
Jews in the Diaspora, and to its international standing. Israel and
its supporters would be treated harshly by history, and it would poison
relations with Israel’s neighbors for years to come. No genuine friend
of Israel could support this policy, which would clearly be a crime against
humanity. It also seems unlikely, because most of the 5.5 million
Palestinians living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean would put up
fierce resistance if Israel tried to expel them from their homes.
Nevertheless, there is reason to worry that Israelis might adopt this
solution as the demographic balance shifts against them and they fear for
the survival of the Jewish state. Given the right circumstances – say
a war involving Israel that is accompanied by serious Palestinian unrest –
Israeli leaders might conclude that they can expel massive numbers of
Palestinians from Greater Israel and depend on the lobby to protect them
from international criticism and especially from sanctions.
We should not underestimate
Israel’s willingness to employ such a horrific strategy if the opportunity
presents itself. It is apparent from public opinion surveys and
everyday discourse that many Israelis hold racist views of Palestinians and
the Gaza massacre makes clear that they have few qualms about killing
Palestinian civilians. It is difficult to disagree with Jimmy Carter’s
comment earlier this year that “the citizens of Palestine are treated more
like animals than like human beings.” A century of conflict and four
decades of occupation will do that to a people.
Furthermore, a substantial
number of Israeli Jews – some 40 percent or more – believe that the Arab
citizens of Israel should be “encouraged” to leave by the government.
Indeed, former foreign minister Tzipi Livni has said that if there is a
two-state solution, she expected Israel’s Palestinian citizens to leave and
settle in the new Palestinian state. And then there is the recent
military order issued by the IDF that is aimed at “preventing infiltration”
into the West Bank. In fact, it enables Israel to deport tens of
thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank should it choose to do so.
And, of course, the Israelis engaged in a massive cleansing of the
Palestinians in 1948 and again in 1967. Still, I do not believe Israel
will resort to this horrible course of action.
The most likely outcome in
the absence of a two-state solution is that Greater Israel will become a
full-fledged apartheid state. As anyone who has spent time in the
Occupied Territories knows, it is already an incipient apartheid state with
separate laws, separate roads, and separate housing for Israelis and
Palestinians, who are essentially confined to impoverished enclaves that
they can leave and enter only with great difficulty.
Israelis and their American
supporters invariably bristle at the comparison to white rule in South
Africa, but that is their future if they create a Greater Israel while
denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber
the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. Indeed, two former
Israeli prime ministers have made this very point. Ehud Olmert, who
was Netanyahu’s predecessor, said in late November 2007 that if “the
two-state solution collapses,” Israel will “face a South-African-style
struggle.” He went so far as to argue that, “as soon as that happens,
the state of Israel is finished.” Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak,
who is now Israel’s defense minister, said in early February of this year
that, "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only
one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or
non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote,
that will be an apartheid state."
Other Israelis, as well as
Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu, have warned that if Israel does not
pull out of the Occupied Territories it will become an apartheid state like
white-ruled South Africa. But if I am right, the occupation is not
going to end and there will not be a two-state solution. That means
Israel will complete its transformation into a full-blown apartheid state
over the next decade.
In the long run, however,
Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. Like
racist South Africa, it will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national
state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians.
Of course, this means that Israel faces a bleak future as a Jewish state.
Let me explain why.
For starters, the
discrimination and repression that is the essence of apartheid will be
increasingly visible to people all around the world. Israel and its
supporters have been able to do a good job of keeping the mainstream media
in the United States from telling the truth about what Israel is doing to
the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. But the Internet is a
game changer. It not only makes it easy for the opponents of apartheid
to get the real story out to the world, but it also allows Americans to
learn the story that the New York Times and the Washington Post have been
hiding from them. Over time, this situation may even force these two
media institutions to cover the story more accurately themselves.
The growing visibility of
this issue is not just a function of the Internet. It is also due to
the fact that the plight of the Palestinians matters greatly to people all
across the Arab and Islamic world, and they constantly raise the issue with
Westerners. It also matters very much to the influential human rights
community, which is naturally going to be critical of Israel’s harsh
treatment of the Palestinians. It is not surprising that hardline
Israelis and their American supporters are now waging a vicious smear
campaign against those human rights organizations that criticize Israel.
The main problem that
Israel’s defenders face, however, is that it is impossible to defend
apartheid, because it is antithetical to core Western values. How does
one make a moral case for apartheid, especially in the United States, where
democracy is venerated and segregation and racism are routinely condemned?
It is hard to imagine the United States having a special relationship with
an apartheid state. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the United States
having much sympathy for one. It is much easier to imagine the United
States strongly opposing that racist state’s political system and working
hard to change it. Of course, many other countries around the globe
would follow suit. This is surely why former Prime Minister Olmert
said that going down the apartheid road would be suicidal for Israel.
Apartheid is not only morally
reprehensible, but it also guarantees that Israel will remain a strategic
liability for the United States...
I believe that most of the
Jews in the great ambivalent middle will not defend apartheid Israel but
will either keep quiet or side with the righteous Jews against the new
Afrikaners, who will become increasingly marginalized over time. And
once that happens, the lobby will be unable to provide cover for Israel’s
racist policies toward the Palestinians in the way it has in the past.
Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of
Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International
Security Policy at the University of Chicago. Dr. Mearsheimer has
written extensively about security issues and international politics more
He has published
four books: Conventional Deterrence (1983), which won the Edgar S. Furniss,
Jr., Book Award; Liddell Hart and the Weight of History (1988); The Tragedy
of Great Power Politics (2001), which won the Joseph Lepgold Book Prize;
and The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (with Stephen M. Walt, 2007).
The full text is available on
The Jerusalem Fund's website at
This except was made
available courtesy of The Palestine Center.