Kobayashi Maru - A no-win situation or scenario, in which every action is effectively countered by a force either seen or unseenThe Kobayashi Maru was a fictional test in the Star Trek series of a "no-win" situation. The test was to assess a cadet's fitness to deal with an impossible situation.
It seems that Israeli Prime Minister faces his own Kobayashi Maru - better known as his version of "The Two State Solution". What makes this Netanyahu's version of a "no-win" situation? Due to the fact that his proposals are an unacceptable alternative to almost EVERYONE, Israeli, Palestinian or member of the World Community.
The Prime Minister has NOT laid out an official plan but given all of his statements on the subject one can speculate what his map might look like. It seems that Netanyahu is proposing something akin to a combination of the Olmert Plan (see map here) AND the Allon Plan with a few changes and additions two of which are that Jerusalem remain undivided under Israeli Control and as Israel's International Capitol and that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People.
So what makes this a Kobayashi Maru Test? Why is it a "no-win" situation for the PM?
Well first off (and let's get the most obvious issue or "objection") - In any negotiation there needs to be an agreement from both sides on a final plan. To get that agreement from the Palestinians, they would have to voluntarily give up on any part of East Jerusalem, including Islam's third holiest shrine the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. NOW... one can make the case that for the most part that under Israeli Rule worshipers have been free to exercise their religious freedom while the same cannot be said when other religions had ruled over Jewish Holy Sites. Still, no Arab leader could voluntarily give up Jerusalem and expect to live until the end of the day.
President Abbas, actually agreed to split E. Jerusalem (as indicated in the Palestine Papers), however, as he never took this back to the Palestinian people and walked away from negotiations one will never know if this would have been accepted by the general populace.
Second, The Palestinians would also have to renounce their perceived "Right of Return" as laid out in U.N. Res. 194. NOW, according to the Palestine Paper by accepting Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. This is a flash point in negotiations and it is something that is of vital importance to both sides. For the Israelis to allow "Palestinian Right of Return" would mean the end of their State as a "Jewish State", and for the Palestinians to give this up would mean "giving up" on the refugee population and banishing them to the tender mercies of their Arab brethren in the surrounding nations.
Again, President Abbas indicated (according to the Palestine Papers) that he would indeed compromise here - HOWEVER like with Jerusalem he was hesitant to take it back to his populace knowing full well that this would never be acceptable to a vast majority.
This is not to mention that the presumed Netanyahu border outline leaves the Palestine State with few resources including most importantly water, no control over their borders and a demilitarized state. As previously stated, this would be a very "hard sell" for Abbas and the Palestinian leadership and quite possibly one that they could not agree too even if they wanted.
Now, the PM and the Israeli negotiating team my feel that they have the Palestinians "Over a Barrel", and to degree they do, of course the Palestinians also feel they have the Israelis "Over a Barrel". How so? Well, if the Palestinians don't negotiate, they can't have a State. Something that they want and in my opinion quite badly need. At the same time if they don't have a State, they force Israel into a situation where the Israelis bleed manpower and treasure to maintain an unpopular Occupation. They force Israel into the position of becoming a permanent Occupying power, a position that would eventually in turn severely strain support for Israel with even it's strongest allies in the U.S. and Europe.
This position of becoming a permanent Occupying power would then force Israel into a demographic nightmare given birthrates of Jews relative to Palestinians. It would not be long until Jews were a minority in the area that they ruled over. THUS, this would destroy Israel's democracy and force an almost permanent civil war on the nation.
Of course the Israelis could then forcibly remove the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank, but, for some odd reason, I think that level of ethnic cleansing would bring on the next Arab Israeli War, and most likely Israel would not have the backing of the it's principle allies.
BUT ok.... let's say the "Age of Miracles" returns AND the Palestinians agree to the Prime Ministers plan. What then? Well the PM's own party turned hard right in the last election lifting noted Right Wing politicians Gideon Saar, and Danny Danon to more powerful positions while relative moderates like Dan Meriador were purged. These hard rightists have said in no uncertain terms that they would not accept anything less than Israeli control over the entire West Bank (Judea and Samaria as they call it).
Would the Rightists give up on the Occupation of Hebron? As one Rightist blogger likes to put it, would the YESHA give up on telling Jews that they have the right to live in what they consider Jewish land in Judea and Samaria? Giving up the settlements in Gaza was traumatic enough (remember Gush Katif?) one can imagine that officially giving up sovereignty over the Territories would lead to a government split at the best and (more likely) Civil War at worst.
Now it is again the both sides in a Catch-22. The Palestinians get what they want (sort of) but who is to guarantee that radical factions like Hamas don't get control of the Palestinian polity, and start a conflict (like Cast Lead). After all it is in the Hamas Charter that they must kill all the Jews and destroy Israel. Then, like in Gaza Israel would be facing an enemy shelling Jerusalem and Tel Aviv from even closer range. What Israeli Prime Minister could agree to something like that and keep his job much less his life (witness Yitzhak Rabin)?
Basically, there's no good way through this without a miracle or more properly the backing of a Super Power to make a deal happen. For the Israelis to make this deal happen they need to have the assurances and the actual back-up of a major military power to assure their security. Something along the lines of a mutual defense pact with a nation like the U.S. and economic security arrangements with both of it's major economic partners,. the U.S. and the Europeans.
For the Palestinians they need to make sure that people will be there to help them build their economy and a stable political system that would not be subject to the authoritarian impulses of the their present leadership. They would need to strike a deal around the Harm al Sharif and Al-Aqsa where they do not relinquish control of their Holy Sites AND they would have to find an alternative solution to the Refugee's.
It's like doing a coin flip with the devil where he smiles and says: "Heads I win, Tails you lose", and you know it's true. Are there ways out. Possibly.... Is it likely now. Not. At. All.
