Time For Other Options - The Bi-National One State Solution
Ahmed Hany
November 18, 2009
When the US secretary of state Hilary Clinton asked the Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas to resume negotiations without freezing settlements, she put the first nail in the coffin of the peace process based on the Two-States solution. Simply she asked him to negotiate for negotiations while letting Israel steals the rest of the Palestinian lands. Whether he was maneuvering or he meant it when he said that he would not go for the presidential elections, her request was an invitation for Palestinians to seek other options.
Khalid Mashaal the head of Politburo of Hamas asked his Fattah rivals to abandon negotiations for good and return to resistance option as if this option was fruitful. The resistance is the legitimate right of the Palestinians as long as Israel occupies their lands, but it was not fruitful. The failed peace process showed the world one important thing which is the importance of having a Palestinian State beside the Israeli State in what called the Two-States solution. However, this process failed until now to set time and shape of the end game. Other options are needed but to define these options one should revise the role of Israel and Palestine in the global strategy and whether Two States are needed or one bi-national state will be more successful.
When Napoleon thought about a nation for European Jews in the Palestine his aim was splitting the Ottoman Empire and separating Turkey from Egypt, the two demographic and geopolitical heavy weight regions of the Eastern Empire. Later on, the Zionist movement refused other countries as Argentina, Uganda to be the destination of the unwanted European Jews. The cause of the refusal is not the religion as the Old Bible teaching stipulates the Kingdom of God should be established when Jesus comes and he establishes it. Some ultraconservative Jews consider Israel and its government infidel because Jews established the state while they should be scattered all over the world until Jesus comes. In fact they insisted on Palestine so that they could integrate it in the global strategies of the superpowers to ensure the success of their project. Even these superpowers found Palestine a useful place for Israel after the WWII. They blamed Germany for killing Jews and punished Palestinians instead of it. If they were fair they would have established Israel on a part of the German historical lands.
In fact, Russia was the first to recognize Israel because its existence meant open game in the Middle East between the two superpowers preventing creation of new modern Eastern Empire on its Southern borders. The US recognized Israel because it was a matter of time for Britain and France to withdraw from the region and the new Western leader wanted a force for intimidation for the new independent states in the region if they developed their relation with the ex-Soviet Union.
After the fall of the Soviet Union the importance of Israel for the Western strategy eroded but its function to stir troubles in the region was beneficial until the game playground becomes in Central Asia. Now Israel is an obstacle in the American global strategy of reconciliation with the Islamic World. In the last two decades Israel developed its strategic relation with China up to the level of spying on the American military industry and exchanging information with the rising Asian force.
It is hard to believe that the US does not have the means to impose solutions in historical Palestine or at least to use the many tools of its soft power to force Israel to freeze settlements. Late President Bill Clinton used it and late Israeli premier Ariel Sharon succumbed to his will. Recently, in a lecture in Emirates he said that failure of the peace process will lead to dire consequences as the Palestinians youth should have hopes that tomorrow will be different from yesterday. Then why did his wife the secretary tried to manipulate Abbas to resume fruitless negotiations that would lead to these dire consequences?
Let´s ask the question in another way. Which is safer for Obama administration confronting the Zionist Lobby and risking losing the next election or leading Israel blind folded to its destiny? Let´s take another step forwards. Which is better for the American strategy to reconcile with Moslems using historical Palestine as two states without a guarantee for future troubles and solving problems of nuclear disarmament or spread in the Middle East, or letting the Two-States solution fall to be replaced by a bi-national one state that could be easily disarmed especially that the heavy weight countries, Egypt and Turkey are allies? Moreover, this bi-national country will open gates for East and South Mediterranean countries to exert their historical function which is the dialogue between civilizations and this function is too important for the reconciliatory strategy.
The problem of the Arabs is that they did not integrate their proposed solution in the global strategies. They refused the 1949 UN solution but they did not have a strategic dialogue with the superpowers. The other side had that dialogue before establishing the Hebrew state. Late President Sadat succeeded in his peace project because it was clear that peace with Egypt meant opening the door for the peace process even after years. The Two-States solution based on Oslo accords should have supported by strategic dialogue with the US to clear the importance of it as an alternative to Margaret Thatcher concept of inventing an enemy which was Islam. If this was done the US would have had an Islamic friend block now and the reconciliation process would have been saved.
J-Street group in the US which is formed from liberal Jews who think that the Neo-Cons and the Israeli right wing will lead Israel to Armageddon asks the US administration to exert pressure on Israel to withdraw to 1967 lines and to recognize the Palestinian state and to divide Jerusalem. In fact they try to avoid the dire consequences that President Clinton mentioned and that his wife left Israel to go towards it. Between the US global strategy and the stubborn right wing Israeli government, the Arabs have a wide range to integrate their solutions. Personally I think if they withdrew their initiative and replaced it with the Bi-national one state solution, Washington may have a cause to give it momentum.
Khalid Mashaal the head of Politburo of Hamas asked his Fattah rivals to abandon negotiations for good and return to resistance option as if this option was fruitful. The resistance is the legitimate right of the Palestinians as long as Israel occupies their lands, but it was not fruitful. The failed peace process showed the world one important thing which is the importance of having a Palestinian State beside the Israeli State in what called the Two-States solution. However, this process failed until now to set time and shape of the end game. Other options are needed but to define these options one should revise the role of Israel and Palestine in the global strategy and whether Two States are needed or one bi-national state will be more successful.
When Napoleon thought about a nation for European Jews in the Palestine his aim was splitting the Ottoman Empire and separating Turkey from Egypt, the two demographic and geopolitical heavy weight regions of the Eastern Empire. Later on, the Zionist movement refused other countries as Argentina, Uganda to be the destination of the unwanted European Jews. The cause of the refusal is not the religion as the Old Bible teaching stipulates the Kingdom of God should be established when Jesus comes and he establishes it. Some ultraconservative Jews consider Israel and its government infidel because Jews established the state while they should be scattered all over the world until Jesus comes. In fact they insisted on Palestine so that they could integrate it in the global strategies of the superpowers to ensure the success of their project. Even these superpowers found Palestine a useful place for Israel after the WWII. They blamed Germany for killing Jews and punished Palestinians instead of it. If they were fair they would have established Israel on a part of the German historical lands.
In fact, Russia was the first to recognize Israel because its existence meant open game in the Middle East between the two superpowers preventing creation of new modern Eastern Empire on its Southern borders. The US recognized Israel because it was a matter of time for Britain and France to withdraw from the region and the new Western leader wanted a force for intimidation for the new independent states in the region if they developed their relation with the ex-Soviet Union.
After the fall of the Soviet Union the importance of Israel for the Western strategy eroded but its function to stir troubles in the region was beneficial until the game playground becomes in Central Asia. Now Israel is an obstacle in the American global strategy of reconciliation with the Islamic World. In the last two decades Israel developed its strategic relation with China up to the level of spying on the American military industry and exchanging information with the rising Asian force.
It is hard to believe that the US does not have the means to impose solutions in historical Palestine or at least to use the many tools of its soft power to force Israel to freeze settlements. Late President Bill Clinton used it and late Israeli premier Ariel Sharon succumbed to his will. Recently, in a lecture in Emirates he said that failure of the peace process will lead to dire consequences as the Palestinians youth should have hopes that tomorrow will be different from yesterday. Then why did his wife the secretary tried to manipulate Abbas to resume fruitless negotiations that would lead to these dire consequences?
Let´s ask the question in another way. Which is safer for Obama administration confronting the Zionist Lobby and risking losing the next election or leading Israel blind folded to its destiny? Let´s take another step forwards. Which is better for the American strategy to reconcile with Moslems using historical Palestine as two states without a guarantee for future troubles and solving problems of nuclear disarmament or spread in the Middle East, or letting the Two-States solution fall to be replaced by a bi-national one state that could be easily disarmed especially that the heavy weight countries, Egypt and Turkey are allies? Moreover, this bi-national country will open gates for East and South Mediterranean countries to exert their historical function which is the dialogue between civilizations and this function is too important for the reconciliatory strategy.
The problem of the Arabs is that they did not integrate their proposed solution in the global strategies. They refused the 1949 UN solution but they did not have a strategic dialogue with the superpowers. The other side had that dialogue before establishing the Hebrew state. Late President Sadat succeeded in his peace project because it was clear that peace with Egypt meant opening the door for the peace process even after years. The Two-States solution based on Oslo accords should have supported by strategic dialogue with the US to clear the importance of it as an alternative to Margaret Thatcher concept of inventing an enemy which was Islam. If this was done the US would have had an Islamic friend block now and the reconciliation process would have been saved.
J-Street group in the US which is formed from liberal Jews who think that the Neo-Cons and the Israeli right wing will lead Israel to Armageddon asks the US administration to exert pressure on Israel to withdraw to 1967 lines and to recognize the Palestinian state and to divide Jerusalem. In fact they try to avoid the dire consequences that President Clinton mentioned and that his wife left Israel to go towards it. Between the US global strategy and the stubborn right wing Israeli government, the Arabs have a wide range to integrate their solutions. Personally I think if they withdrew their initiative and replaced it with the Bi-national one state solution, Washington may have a cause to give it momentum.
Print
Email
