Just weeks away from the Israeli elections, a resolution to the Israel Palestine conflict appears more remote than ever. On my visit to Israel it became apparent, particularly when talking to the Western and Israeli media, that the notion of a two-state solution is dying with Israel’s ongoing expansionist policies in the West Bank. This election comes in the wake of Israel’s controversial announcement that it will build settlements in the E1 district cutting Palestinian East Jerusalem off from the West Bank. Israel’s basis for the controversial developments was retaliatory in the wake of the decision of the UN General Assembly to give the Palestinian Authority Observer State status.
This election has also seen the rise of the fundamentalist Jewish Home party. In the Guardian, their leader recently described the conflict as ‘insoluble’, said that most Israelis “don’t care” about the issue, adding that “I want the world to understand that a Palestinian state means no Israeli state. That’s the equation.” It remains to be seen as to whether the popular support the Jewish Home Party will give them seats in Government following this election (though it is regarded as likely), however the realistic likelihood that will happen raises the spectre that the new Government may even less likely to offer concessions that are necessary for a peaceful, mutually acceptable two state solution.
Perhaps keen to capitalise on the hardline sentiment, Binyamin Netanyahu stated that he would reject the creation of a Palestinian State on 1967 borders. Reported in the Guardian this weekend, Netanyahu said "When they say, 'Go back to the 67 lines,' I stand against. When they say, 'Don't build in Jerusalem,' I stand against."
He went on to say "It's very easy to capitulate. I could go back to the impossible-to-defend 67 lines, and divide Jerusalem, and we would get Hamas 400 metres from my home"
This is obviously a particularly worrying, backwards step in the pursuit of a resolution to the conflict. Made all the more worrying because it comes from the mouth of the Prime Minister.
The scale of illegal Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank and the omnipresence of the oppressive Israeli Defence Forces to protect the 500,000 settlers that live in the occupied West Bank creates a further, physical impasse to a two state solution.
And there have even been realisations of this new reality on the other side of the dividing wall. Ahmed Qurei, the former PM of the Palestinian Authorities and one of the drafters of the original Oslo Accords has publicly stated that there needs to be an internal public dialogue amongst Palestinians about a one state solution. He said that Israel has ‘buried’ the two-state solution, believing that it is worthwhile to at least consider the reality of a one-state solution.
The evidence seems to point to an Israel less willing to compromise, inclined towards a passive policy abroad, a possessive policy of land grabbing at home. The reality is there are very few reasons now why Israel should seek meaningful steps towards a two-state solution. The barrier provides an answer to Israel’s security issues and the settlements extend that security and influence over Palestine.
A one state solution would need to be representative, a secular state where Palestinians are treated equally. A failure to address the requirements of democracy would leave the state of Israel in a legitimacy crisis, a de jure apartheid.
There is clearly currently only a small amount of support amongst Palestinian people for a one state solution – and that is entirely understandable. I would hazard a guess that even those Arabs who take Israeli citizenship would prefer to be citizens of their own state. However, at the beginning of 2013, this looks more distant than ever – even if it has never really been that close.
Palestinians and Israeli’s have long lived together within a singular state, Israel. Before this election, around 10% of members of the Israeli Knesset were Arab-Israelis. Of the 8 million citizens of Israel, around 20% are Arabs. There is no talk of these Palestinians leaving Israel and joining a separate Palestinian state.
It is quite possible that two states are becoming politically unachievable inside Israel. Wider opinion would perhaps feel slightly more reassured by those with a ‘no surrender’ attitude, if this stance was accompanied by a talk of an inclusive one-state solution where Palestinians are equal citizens; but it is not in any meaningful way.
It has always been Israeli policy to keep the two-state solution on the table, but the reality is they have surreptitiously kept it just out of distance; in the long term they have simply taken more of the land and extended their geographical, political and military jurisdiction over occupied territory. Even foreign supporters of Israel rarely go into any detail about what settlement they want, and the result is a continued justification of an unacceptable status quo.
Israel will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the pretence that it wants a two state solution. It will also find it very difficult to put the whole blame onto the Palestinians for the failure of any meaningful steps to a settlement.
At some point the one state solution is going to put on the table. A debate that would be problematic for the right in Israel. For now a one state solution is just coffee table chat but it won’t be long before there is a wider public debate on the issue.
Just weeks away from the Israeli elections, a resolution to the Israel Palestine conflict appears more remote than ever. On my visit to Israel it became apparent, particularly when talking to the Western and Israeli media, that the notion of a two-state solution is dying with Israel’s ongoing expansionist policies in the West Bank. This election comes in the wake of Israel’s controversial announcement that it will build settlements in the E1 district cutting Palestinian East Jerusalem off from the West Bank. Israel’s basis for the controversial developments was retaliatory in the wake of the decision of the UN General Assembly to give the Palestinian Authority Observer State status.
This election has also seen the rise of the fundamentalist Jewish Home party. In the Guardian, their leader recently described the conflict as ‘insoluble’, said that most Israelis “don’t care” about the issue, adding that “I want the world to understand that a Palestinian state means no Israeli state. That’s the equation.” It remains to be seen as to whether the popular support the Jewish Home Party will give them seats in Government following this election (though it is regarded as likely), however the realistic likelihood that will happen raises the spectre that the new Government may even less likely to offer concessions that are necessary for a peaceful, mutually acceptable two state solution.
The scale of illegal Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank and the omnipresence of the oppressive Israeli Defence Forces to protect the 500,000 settlers that live in the occupied West Bank creates a further, physical impasse to a two state solution.
And there have even been realisations of this new reality on the other side of the dividing wall. Ahmed Qurei, the former PM of the Palestinian Authorities and one of the drafters of the original Oslo Accords has publicly stated that there needs to be an internal public dialogue amongst Palestinians about a one state solution. He said that Israel has ‘buried’ the two-state solution, believing that it is worthwhile to at least consider the reality of a one-state solution.
The evidence seems to point to an Israel less willing to compromise, inclined towards a passive policy abroad, a possessive policy of land grabbing at home. The reality is there are very few reasons now why Israel should seek meaningful steps towards a two-state solution. The barrier provides an answer to Israel’s security issues and the settlements extend that security and influence over Palestine.
A one state solution would need to be representative, a secular state where Palestinians are treated equally. A failure to address the requirements of democracy would leave the state of Israel in a legitimacy crisis, a de jure apartheid.
There is clearly currently only a small amount of support amongst Palestinian people for a one state solution – and that is entirely understandable. I would hazard a guess that even those Arabs who take Israeli citizenship would prefer to be citizens of their own state. However, at the beginning of 2013, this looks more distant than ever – even if it has never really been that close.
Palestinians and Israeli’s have long lived together within a singular state, Israel. Before this election, around 10% of members of the Israeli Knesset were Arab-Israelis. Of the 8 million citizens of Israel, around 20% are Arabs. There is no talk of these Palestinians leaving Israel and joining a separate Palestinian state.
It is quite possible that two states are becoming politically unachievable inside Israel. Wider opinion would perhaps feel slightly more reassured by those with a ‘no surrender’ attitude, if this stance was accompanied by a talk of an inclusive one-state solution where Palestinians are equal citizens; but it is not in any meaningful way.
It has always been Israeli policy to keep the two-state solution on the table, but the reality is they have surreptitiously kept it just out of distance; in the long term they have simply taken more of the land and extended their geographical, political and military jurisdiction over occupied territory. Even foreign supporters of Israel rarely go into any detail about what settlement they want, and the result is a continued justification of an unacceptable status quo.
Israel will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the pretence that it wants a two state solution. It will also find it very difficult to put the whole blame onto the Palestinians for the failure of any meaningful steps to a settlement.
At some point the one state solution is going to put on the table. A debate that would be problematic for the right in Israel. For now a one state solution is just coffee table chat but it won’t be long before there is a wider public debate on the issue.
Having juts written the above article this email arrived in my inbox...
|
Israeli threat to annex most of West Bank
FCO questions to be tabled by 12.30 pm on Wednesday Jan 16th
FCO question time 11.30 am on Tuesday January 22nd
|
|
