Palestine and Israel - to be or not to be!!!!!!!
Ahmed Hany
December 05, 2008
Both Israel and Palestine States are in the same boat. The international and regional development made the presence of one of them is necessary for the other. Failure to reach a solution for both states would simply force both people to live in a new one state.
Palestinian cause is now at its lowest point since 1948. Both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side suffer from internal weaknesses that affect the political will that is important to reach deals and to sign them. Weak leaders in both sides try to save their carrier. Their relentless maneuvers to save their future affect drastically the future of their countries. These leaders use negotiations to serve their internal conflicts with opponents. Unfortunately, the opponents in both sides have no alternative to the unproductive negotiations.
However, the Israeli President Shimon Perez who has no real authorities complicated the situation by excluding Jerusalem from the Arab Peace Initiative. The going Israeli Prime Minister Euhod Olmart warned his people that a bi-national One-State solution would be the alternative if negotiators failed to reach a deal. Mahmood Abbas the Palestinian President would face a constitutional problem in the near future if he did not reach a compromise with Hamas that boycotted Cairo dialogue to give Iran more assets to deal with the new American Administration. Hamas in Gaza might block a call for presidential and parliamentary elections also because its catastrophic weak resistance polices and bad management of the strip made Palestinians there suffer on the hands of Hamas more than any previous regime. However, Abbas and Olmart still meet. One wonders why they meet regularly, perhaps for public relation causes.
The main obstacles to the solution are Jerusalem and the Palestinian Refugees. Israel systematically takes steps to expel Palestinians from Jerusalem and demolish Islamic sites. It builds new settlements and expands the old ones. It tries to use the settlements card to swap the Arab-Israelis to the new state for of settlers and forces Arabs negotiators to accept refugees in the new state to declare Israel a Jewish State within the walls that it has been building since years. History tells that walls and front lines usually fall due to a reason or another. Inside the Israeli walls, conflicts between Sephardim and Ashkenazi and between Jewish fundamentalists and secularists will explode the state from inside. Israel complains that peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan did not lead to normalization of relation between people.
A state inside walls is too hard to be integrated in the Middle East. The history of the Mideast tells about people of different nationalities living together usually under an umbrella of a big empire since Romans occupied the region. The only regional system that might integrate Israel is the Arab League that supports the Saudi Arab Peace Initiative that calls for the return of refugees to where they or their parents were born. Excluding Jerusalem means persistence of war state between Israel and every Moslem and Christian in this region. Before creation of Israel Jews lived in this region and some were popular artists and businessmen. Others were in high posts. Therefore, a Jewish State inside walls means no integration in the region and no peace.
Israel and Palestinians have three strategic options. The first is that Israel will continue its military offensive operations that range between limited ones against Gaza and the West Bank to a full scale against Syria and Lebanon. It is well known that there is no military solution to the conflict. However, this option may expose Israel to unprecedented risk as it will render Israel not attractive for its youth and the reverse immigration will complicate its demographic situation more. Israel cannot withstand another defeat against small military group like Hezbo-Allah again. At the same time, it is difficult to achieve victory against these groups because the limited front obliges commanders to use a small force alienating the use of many tanks and armored cars. Most probably, the new US administration will not give Israel a green card to fight Syria in a full-scale war while it wants to talk with Iran. Even the claims that Syria has a nuclear program will not be enough for Israel to justify its war on Syria, as the Americans would discuss the more advanced Iranian nuclear program. The new administration does not want a confrontation with Russia that uses Tartus as a military base. Yet if Netanyahu came next February, he might risk military adventures to postpone peace negotiations. His choice might be the limited ones against Gaza, West Bank or Lebanon. That suits Hamas and Iran as it keeps a reason for orators to talk more about resistance and keeping power in Gaza to be used in the Iranian file. It also gives a reason for Hezbo-Allah not disarm. It gives Iran good cards to deal about South Iraq and its nuclear file. It also makes Syria a card in the Iranian hands.
The second option is to continue in peace negotiations and implementing obstacles in a timeless process to further weakening the Palestinian will and to further deteriorate conditions in the occupied bank and to let Hamas fires some ineffective rockets that help the Israeli government to complain everywhere and to claim that it has no peace partner. Tzipi Levini would favor this choice not to sign deals that might anger the small religious parties that would be in the government if she won.
The third option is to wait for the bi-national One-State that is not popular until now in Israel, but it might be a Palestinian Authority request in the near future. Yet to reach this option failure of the peace negotiations should be declared first. The first reaction might range from exchange of violence to a full-scale limited war. The problem would be that people would not believe in negotiations based on two states again. The limited war might expand to drag the whole region in destructive wars. Then the One-State might emerge as an idea to bring peace if international superpowers reached a consensus that peace is necessary in this area.
In fact, the superpower used to play Palestine and Mideast peace and not to play for Palestine and Mideast peace. Let us remember that George Bush the father talked about peace and Madrid conference when he wanted to build an alliance against Saddam to liberate Kuwait. It was impossible to send American troops to the Saudi land before sending Egyptian troops. It was difficult for people to accept the idea of having an alliance with the US against Iraq regardless of its ruler and the sins it had done against its people and the other Arabs. Palestine solved the emotional problems for G W Bush the senior. The son used Palestine to occupy Iraq and he said proudly that he was the first American President who talked about a Palestinian State while during his legacy the Palestinians suffered more than anytime.
The Arab system has to address this dilemma of being manipulated by unproductive negotiations and lip service to calm it down after repeated Israeli aggressions. To do that, the Arab system may resort to the holistic approach to solve its regional problems collectively. Addressing Palestine alone expose the Arab weakness. They have to address the regional problems from Iran to Somalia and from War on Terror to the Monetary Crisis holistically with the US, EU and Russia. Then they might send their negotiators to write accords with Israel. Let the holistic approach be the next article.
Palestinian cause is now at its lowest point since 1948. Both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side suffer from internal weaknesses that affect the political will that is important to reach deals and to sign them. Weak leaders in both sides try to save their carrier. Their relentless maneuvers to save their future affect drastically the future of their countries. These leaders use negotiations to serve their internal conflicts with opponents. Unfortunately, the opponents in both sides have no alternative to the unproductive negotiations.
However, the Israeli President Shimon Perez who has no real authorities complicated the situation by excluding Jerusalem from the Arab Peace Initiative. The going Israeli Prime Minister Euhod Olmart warned his people that a bi-national One-State solution would be the alternative if negotiators failed to reach a deal. Mahmood Abbas the Palestinian President would face a constitutional problem in the near future if he did not reach a compromise with Hamas that boycotted Cairo dialogue to give Iran more assets to deal with the new American Administration. Hamas in Gaza might block a call for presidential and parliamentary elections also because its catastrophic weak resistance polices and bad management of the strip made Palestinians there suffer on the hands of Hamas more than any previous regime. However, Abbas and Olmart still meet. One wonders why they meet regularly, perhaps for public relation causes.
The main obstacles to the solution are Jerusalem and the Palestinian Refugees. Israel systematically takes steps to expel Palestinians from Jerusalem and demolish Islamic sites. It builds new settlements and expands the old ones. It tries to use the settlements card to swap the Arab-Israelis to the new state for of settlers and forces Arabs negotiators to accept refugees in the new state to declare Israel a Jewish State within the walls that it has been building since years. History tells that walls and front lines usually fall due to a reason or another. Inside the Israeli walls, conflicts between Sephardim and Ashkenazi and between Jewish fundamentalists and secularists will explode the state from inside. Israel complains that peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan did not lead to normalization of relation between people.
A state inside walls is too hard to be integrated in the Middle East. The history of the Mideast tells about people of different nationalities living together usually under an umbrella of a big empire since Romans occupied the region. The only regional system that might integrate Israel is the Arab League that supports the Saudi Arab Peace Initiative that calls for the return of refugees to where they or their parents were born. Excluding Jerusalem means persistence of war state between Israel and every Moslem and Christian in this region. Before creation of Israel Jews lived in this region and some were popular artists and businessmen. Others were in high posts. Therefore, a Jewish State inside walls means no integration in the region and no peace.
Israel and Palestinians have three strategic options. The first is that Israel will continue its military offensive operations that range between limited ones against Gaza and the West Bank to a full scale against Syria and Lebanon. It is well known that there is no military solution to the conflict. However, this option may expose Israel to unprecedented risk as it will render Israel not attractive for its youth and the reverse immigration will complicate its demographic situation more. Israel cannot withstand another defeat against small military group like Hezbo-Allah again. At the same time, it is difficult to achieve victory against these groups because the limited front obliges commanders to use a small force alienating the use of many tanks and armored cars. Most probably, the new US administration will not give Israel a green card to fight Syria in a full-scale war while it wants to talk with Iran. Even the claims that Syria has a nuclear program will not be enough for Israel to justify its war on Syria, as the Americans would discuss the more advanced Iranian nuclear program. The new administration does not want a confrontation with Russia that uses Tartus as a military base. Yet if Netanyahu came next February, he might risk military adventures to postpone peace negotiations. His choice might be the limited ones against Gaza, West Bank or Lebanon. That suits Hamas and Iran as it keeps a reason for orators to talk more about resistance and keeping power in Gaza to be used in the Iranian file. It also gives a reason for Hezbo-Allah not disarm. It gives Iran good cards to deal about South Iraq and its nuclear file. It also makes Syria a card in the Iranian hands.
The second option is to continue in peace negotiations and implementing obstacles in a timeless process to further weakening the Palestinian will and to further deteriorate conditions in the occupied bank and to let Hamas fires some ineffective rockets that help the Israeli government to complain everywhere and to claim that it has no peace partner. Tzipi Levini would favor this choice not to sign deals that might anger the small religious parties that would be in the government if she won.
The third option is to wait for the bi-national One-State that is not popular until now in Israel, but it might be a Palestinian Authority request in the near future. Yet to reach this option failure of the peace negotiations should be declared first. The first reaction might range from exchange of violence to a full-scale limited war. The problem would be that people would not believe in negotiations based on two states again. The limited war might expand to drag the whole region in destructive wars. Then the One-State might emerge as an idea to bring peace if international superpowers reached a consensus that peace is necessary in this area.
In fact, the superpower used to play Palestine and Mideast peace and not to play for Palestine and Mideast peace. Let us remember that George Bush the father talked about peace and Madrid conference when he wanted to build an alliance against Saddam to liberate Kuwait. It was impossible to send American troops to the Saudi land before sending Egyptian troops. It was difficult for people to accept the idea of having an alliance with the US against Iraq regardless of its ruler and the sins it had done against its people and the other Arabs. Palestine solved the emotional problems for G W Bush the senior. The son used Palestine to occupy Iraq and he said proudly that he was the first American President who talked about a Palestinian State while during his legacy the Palestinians suffered more than anytime.
The Arab system has to address this dilemma of being manipulated by unproductive negotiations and lip service to calm it down after repeated Israeli aggressions. To do that, the Arab system may resort to the holistic approach to solve its regional problems collectively. Addressing Palestine alone expose the Arab weakness. They have to address the regional problems from Iran to Somalia and from War on Terror to the Monetary Crisis holistically with the US, EU and Russia. Then they might send their negotiators to write accords with Israel. Let the holistic approach be the next article.