Will the Two-State Solution be on the Cards Again?

President Donald Trump and PM Benjamin Netanyahu met again after the UN General Assembly 2018 Meeting with all its speeches. After the joint meeting, the Two-State Solution question was raised at the Netanyahu-Trump press conference for the umpteenth time. Trump has given an indication that he personally “would go” for the Two-State solution. Netanyahu never said anything apart from twitching a foot in discomfort. Netanyahu did not commit himself verbally at all.

Trump assumes that Netanyahu supports the two-state solution but this appears to be doubtful. He cannot commit himself with any certainty. On the one side, Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing Zionist religious and the ultra-Orthodox Parties will break up his coalition. Habayit Hayehudi has made no bones about its opposition to the two-state solution. Most UN members support the two-state solution and it is easier said than its possibility of achievement in the future.

The mutual back-slapping between Netanyahu and Trump will harm Israel in the long term. Had Trump authorised the move of the US Embassy to West Jerusalem and stated that, the opposition to the US Embassy would have been avoided. Trump did not state that and the Palestinian reaction was detrimental to the US and made a very poor situation even worse. After all the Knesset and many official government offices are in West Jerusalem including the High Court and this has not been a bone of contention.

Referring to Trump's support of Israel's actions in Syria, Netanyahu said he was very satisfied with the president's "unreserved support for the State of Israel and its right to self-defence in the context of the event [the crisis with Russia over the downing of a Russian plane in Syria] and in general." 1

A day later PM Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his General Assembly Speech. As we all know, Netanyahu is great at rhetoric. Most of his speech was devoted to condemning Iran and all the various Mossad secret information on Iran’s nuclear capabilities complete with diagrams as only Netanyahu knows how to deliver to his UN audience.  Some of the information revealed was the nuclear sites not far from Beirut’s airport. Displaying photographs from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday accused Iran of maintaining a secret atomic warehouse in Tehran, proving its intent to develop nuclear weapons despite the accord it reached with major powers in 2015. 2

His speech received much applause from the Israeli and US delegations. The hall was half empty and it is difficult to estimate how much applause he received from the other members present. Briefing Israeli reporters travelling with Netanyahu in the US on Friday, a senior Israeli official said the prime minister's revelation of the atomic warehouse and its contents have caused “growing pressure inside Iran.” 3 While most of us are aware that Iran does pose a threat to Israel. The Iranian leadership rhetoric against Israel and its support for its destruction by their own admittance cannot be denied and Israel has the right to defend itself. Iran’s human rights record is shocking and opposition to the Iranian regime is not tolerated. This part of Netanyahu’s speech reflects a truth that cannot be refuted.

The problem with the Palestinians was hardly emphasized. We all know that peace with Israel’s Arab neighbours depends on achieving peace with the Palestinians. The two-state solution that appears unattainable is still the only game in town. There are  two main obstacles to getting there:

1. The weakness of Mahmoud Abbas and his inability to make any movement towards peace because of the inability of Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist or even to coordinate any stand for peace negotiations together with the Palestinian Authority with Israel. As far as Hamas is concerned, Israel is occupied territory since the day it was established in 1948.
2. The establishment and expansion of Israeli Jewish settlements in territory captured in during the June 1967 War and Israel’s refusal to withdraw towards the pre-1967 lines and giving up these settlements. Under these conditions, a future Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital will never be viable or negotiated.

If these two problems were solved then the two-state solution has a chance. It will still not be a piece of cake to achieve. Viewing the scenario for a two-state solution today is an impossible exercise and under the present circumstances will just not happen and the stalemate will continue for many years.

Netanyahu has stated in his speech that “Some believe that Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic. This is false. Israel is both, and Israel will always remain both”. This is not really true.

Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Judaism is the state religion of Israel and has always been so since Israel’s establishment. Muslims and Christians have total freedom of religion. This is not true of Reform and Conservative Jews whose rights of worship are not free. Their rabbis have no recognition in Israel and they are forbidden to marry couples. DEMOCRACY AND ORTHODOX JUDAISM ARE NOT COMPATIBLE! Netanyahu is the king of rhetoric but not the king of truth.

Netanyahu’s ramble about the Nation-State Law as being non-discriminatory and degrading towards Israel’s non-Jewish citizens is also not entirely true. Another example is in culture. Culture is under the control of the Minister of Culture and Sport, Miri Regev. She views avant-garde culture as not patriotic and will be deprived of state funding. She has her own agenda of what culture should be and she sticks by it! Miri Regev maintains that Israel is a democracy and that she has the democratic right to do as she wishes on cultural issues according to her worldview. Satire in cultural activity directed against the government is viewed as unpatriotic. In fact, criticism of the government, especially on the occupation is viewed as treacherous and those who are left-wing are ostracised most severely. Visitors suspected of political views that are not sympathetic to the Netanyahu Government are often questioned at Ben Gurion Airport on suspicion of wanting to harm Israel. So where is democracy in Israel?  

References:

1. 26 Sep. 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/after-trump-meeting-netanyahu-backs-palestinian-state-under-israeli-security-control-1.6511190. Accessed 30 Sep. 2018.
2. 28 Sep. 2018, https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/09/1021192. Accessed 30 Sep. 2018
3. 29 Sep. 2018, https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-was-to-reveal-third-site-in-speech-on-iran-but-intel-chiefs-said-no/. Accessed 30 Sep. 2018.

John Kerry's Departing Speech

After having heard John Kerry’s speech as objectively as possible, I concluded  that it was NOT anti Israel but anti settlement in the occupied territories. He viewed the settlements as an impediment to the Two-State solution.

Kerry laid out his vision for a Two State Solution and its advantages for peace on both sides. Many Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the Arab League, have stated that they would accept a two-state solution based on 1949 Armistice Agreements, more commonly referred to as the "1967 borders" [1 ]

Only a biased person can interpret the speech as hostile to Israel. He made a number of salient points, which were obvious and could be accepted by reasonable minded people. Kerry is one of the few diplomats in the Obama Administration that has knowledge of the conflict. He has been involved in trying to facilitate talks between Israel and the Palestinians under Obama’s tenure for many years. Unfortunately his efforts had failed for a number reasons, some of which are mentioned later in this article.

He is aware of the pitfalls and the severe problems involved. There was no hostility to Israel in Kerry’s delivery although one can sense a tinge of disillusionment and failure in achieving the goal of a Two State Solution. He saw the settlements as holes as in Swiss cheese that render the Two State Solution not viable.

He criticized the Israeli Government for this situation making the Two State solution impossible to achieve. A One State Solution would be bad for both parties and would only increase violence between both sides as well as threatening Israel’s democracy. He admitted that Israel has the most right wing Government in its history. The speech was a speech of disillusionment that spelt out doom if the Two State solution is abandoned.U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled broad guidelines Wednesday for an eventual peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, warning that a two-state solution to the conflict is in "serious jeopardy." [2]

The speech spelt out dangers for both peoples because of the settlements and their expansion by the Israeli Government.

Kerry failed to enlarge on the reasons why negotiations failed.There are no partners for peace negotiations. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas has its hands tied by Hamas, who is against any form of negotiation with Israel. They view Israel as occupied territory since its establishment.  If Abbas signs a peace treaty with Israel it will be “off with his head” as in Lewis Carroll’s Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, (published 1865), The Queen of Hearts shrieks the phrase several times in the story - in fact she doesn't say a great deal else:

The players all played at once without waiting for turns, quarrelling all the while, and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the Queen was in a furious passion, and went stamping about, and shouting' Off with his head!' or 'Off with her head!' about once in a minute.

Apart from that, all that Abbas can do is to utter hostile rhetoric against Israel on its intransigence. By doing this, he can drum up support against Israel and thus save his own skin by not signing any peace treaty with Israel.

Meanwhile both Hamas and the PA are raking in the cash from foreign donations for the Palestinians into their leaderships’ foreign bank accounts. They plead poverty blaming Israel for its intransigence and lack of progress while they themselves are becoming wealthy under the occupation. This is their livelihood. The eternal negotiator since the Madrid Conference of 1991, Saeb Erekat, is a professional negotiator and not doing badly out of it financially.

John Kerry seems to be devoid of reality and this reflects in his departure speech. He said the right things that are true and really indisputable. He condemned terror in general terms as if it's the settlements that promote it.

Even if there were no settlements in the occupied territory as was the case prior to the June 1967 War, an excuse will be found as it was then to destroy Israel. The problem between Israel and the Palestinians is existential. One needs to read the hate propaganda against Israel even before the Six Day War of 1967 to understand that. The Palestinian education system is full of anti-Israel hate as well as being anti-Semitic. The conflict is not only about land but about religion as well. In this respect, Daesh and Hamas share similar goals. It is unfortunate that Kerry did not touch on this subject in his speech as it really is the root course of the conflict. The settlements in the occupied territories is an added factor of course but the basic hate for Israel even existed before the occupation.

Businesses also play a vital role in sustaining the settlements, thereby facilitating and benefiting from Israel's violation of the international law prohibition on an occupying power transferring its civilian population into occupied territory and contributing to Israel's discrimination against Palestinians in the West Bank. [3]

Israel under PMs Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, and Yitzhak Rabin did make serious attempts at peace, including land swaps, which the Palestinian leadership rejected. It is a pity that Kerry did not mention these. The freezing of settlement activity by PM Netanyahu for 10 months on November 25th 2009 was cosmetic and can be taken with a pinch of salt. The Palestinians were zig -zagging all the time by disagreeing with every Israeli proposal that Kerry avoided mentioning in his speech. He failed to recognize that the Palestinians do not recognize Israel's right to exist. It was all a show over the years. If they did, progress could have been made and even land swaps initiated to end the occupation and achieve a solution. This is the cold reality. Now with Hamas involved in Palestinian Street, the emphasis on non recognition of Israel is even more blatant. Now we have a dangerous stalemate, which will lead to more violence between Israel and the Palestinians with the Two-State solution receding from reality.

It is no use crying over spilt milk, but had there not been settlements established after 1967 and had Israel declared these occupied territories a closed military zone totally settlement free, Israel would not have been accused of colonizing territories and its credibility would be high as well as gaining world support as was the case prior to 1967. The occupied territories would be held as a trump (not to be confused with US President-Elect Donald Trump) card for a true peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians. The world would have pressurized the Arab countries and the Palestinians to make peace with Israel and the Two-State Solution would have had a chance of becoming a reality.

Rightly or wrongly, world support is always against the conqueror and for the conquered. The Palestinians are viewed as the conquered.

All that remains is to see how President-elect, Donald Trump will handle the situation and if he will stick to his pledge of being more settler-friendly. This is the last great hope of PM Netanyahu after he had been spraying invective against those who voted against the settlements and the US, who had abstained in UN Security Council Assembly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution. Accessed 30 Dec. 2016.

[2] http://www.voanews.com/a/kerry-to-outline-us-vision-for-israeli-palestinian-accord/3653728.html. Accessed 30 Dec. 2016.

[3] https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/19/occupation-inc/how-settlement-businesses-contribute-israels-violations-palestinian. Accessed 31 Dec. 2016.

Related articles

• EU still behind two-state solution for Palestinian-Israel peace but right-wing resolve hardening
• What Kerry Should Have Said
• Netanyahu is rallying Israelis against Obama and the UN
• After Backlash From Israel, Kerry Argues Alliances Need 'Hard Truths'
• Kerry threatens support for UN action against Israel

An Independent Palestinian State?

Over the years , there has been much discussion, official and unofficial of a Two-State Solution. Many think tanks were also involved in finding a way to achieve this. It seems logical, just and fair striving and supporting this solution. It is unjust to occupy another people who seek independence from an occupying country. The world supports a Two-State Solution. However, the problems involved in trying to achieve this seem insurmountable.

In order to begin the process of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, there must be a basic desire on both sides to reach an agreement. If there is a desire on the one side, but not on the other, no agreement will ever be reached.

Hamas has reaffirmed its "strategic position" regarding its refusal to recognize Israel, or hold direct talks with it, Jordanian newspaper Al-Ghad said.

It is not enough expressing support for a Two-State Solution verbally, while in practice, both parties are not prepared to concede, apart from not having  leadership that has the courage and foresight to get the peace process moving.

On the Palestinian side, the Palestinian Authority (PA), under President Mahmoud Abbas, has no support from the Palestinian People. The PA negotiators are there but they are impotent. The chief negotiator, Dr Saeb Erekat, has been representing the PA for over 20 years. The same polemics are uttered endlessly and no progress has been made. In the background of all these negotiations, keeping a watchful eye on the PA, is Hamas and its allies. Hamas, has no intention of recognizing Israel's right to exist and is against negotiations for peace of any kind. Hamas has more support from the Palestinian electorate than the PA. In aprevious article I had enlarged on this. If by remote chance there is an agreement on a Two-State Solution and President Mahmoud Abbas signs, he stands a good chance of his life being endangered by Palestinian extremists.

On the Israeli side, support for a Two-State Solution is receding. PM Netanyahu is determined  that it will not occur on his watch. Netanyahu has appointed veteran Cabinet Minister, Silvan Shalom, to be in charge of negotiations with the Palestinians. Both Hamas and the right wing Israeli coalition government paradoxically do not agree to a Two-State Solution, each for totally different reasons of course.

The present Israeli Government will never agree to dismantling settlements and withdrawing from areas occupied after the June 1967 War. This is one of the basics of a Two-State Solution. Apart from that even if they did dismantle settlements, it will have no impact on Hamas. Hamas will only agree to a One-State Solution - the replacement of Israel by a Palestinian State and all that it entails. In the unlikely event of Israel withdrawing from the West Bank, it would result in Hamas taking over as they did in Gaza, there would be slaughter of settlers and those Palestinians opposing Hamas.

On both sides of the deep divide, there are no serious partners, who can engage in peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Apart from seriouslack of trust and hatred, there is nothing that can remotely link the two sidesin a common desire for peace. The PA, with its history of corruption and its fear of Hamas and the extremist Islamist elements, does not represent anybody but themselves.

Another factor in this conflict is that Hamas, which has more support than the PA, does not wish to come to terms with Israel's existence or negotiate a peace treaty. This is in contrast to the situation in South Africa when all peoples had a desire to end apartheid and the White and Black leadership negotiated in good faith an end to the apartheid regime. I "apologize" to the self-righteous, double standard, "humanists" and their NGO allies, who keep on comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa as well as supporting BDS. They view Hamas as an organization for liberation of the Palestinians from the Israeli Occupation and refuse to see this notorious organization of terrorist thugs who kill their own people that oppose them, as well as carrying out terrorist acts against innocent Israelis. The racist anti-Semitic slogans of Hamas resembles the diatribes against the black people of apartheid South Africa if one is searching for a comparison with the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict and apartheid South Africa.

The stalemate will continue until a new order on both sides arises that has the courage to negotiate a Two-State Solution, which is the only possibility for true and lasting peace. Painful concessions and compromises have to be made by both sides and neither side is prepared to do just the bare minimum towards achieving peace.

On the other hand, the PA and Hamas have signed an agreement and despite the tenuous nature of this agreement, it is obvious that Hamas will not allow the PA to sign a peace agreement with Israel. The Hamas Charter makes this perfectly clear:

Article 13 of the Hamas charter states unambiguously

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.. ” (The Avalon Project).

When the PA is handcuffed by Hamas, a Two-State Solution will never be feasible and the stalemate will continue. This stalemate will lead to further violence and terror. 

Related articles

• Palestinian State - Figment of Imagination?
• Two States for Two Peoples and Islamist Terror
• Palestinian Authority's "Crimes of High Treason" by Khaled Abu Toameh
  
  
  
  

Palestinians' Anti-Peace Campaign

Palestinians' Anti-Peace Campaign Prior to attending this meeting I wrote an article about the unfortunate demise of the Two-State Solution. What happened at this meeting is gaining support among Palestinians and is aiding the right wing Netanyahu Coalition, by strengthening Netanyahu's claim that there will be no Palestinian State. If this is what occurs at Peace Meetings sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, we are going to have a disaster as Hamas gives support to these activities. It will also strengthen the hawkish Netanyahu Government, which was sworn in with the majority of one vote (61 for and 59 against).

Related articles

• Palestinian State - Figment of Imagination?
• Palestinian Authority's "Crimes of High Treason" by Khaled Abu Toameh
• Former US President: Benjamin Netanyahu 'never believed in two-state solution for Israel and Palestine'
• Abbas is old, Hamas divided: Who will lead Palestinians?
• Obama: 'Two-State Solution' Best for Israel's Security
• Despite Obama's demand, Netanyahu's coalition guidelines make no commitment to Palestinian state
• Indeed