The Web

Articles & Analyses

The collapse of “two state solution"
By: Moatasem Hamadeh
March 9, 2017

Trump's statements put the followers of the “two state solution” in the corner, what they are going to do with that?

It wasn't enough for Trump his slap to the betting on the bilateral negotiations under Oslo cover, when he announced his intention to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, nor the second one was when he announced his condemnation to the UN resolution 2334, and his support to Israel settlements projects. But also he made third one when he announced the death of the "two-state solution". So, he is throwing the ball to Netanyahu court to let him show his alternative scenarios to the so-called the "Permanent solution".

The "two state solution" was the main bet which the Palestinian Authority, was raising its dreams on the ability of its implementation, and that happened under the cover of PA's waiving of the Palestinian national project. This bet was the reason behind all the waivers which were done by the PA, in a hope that one day the dream of the two state solution will come true in one of the sterile and protracted negotiations' rounds with Israel.

This dream was recently collapsed after one of the US new president's statements.
The paradox here is that, these people who bet on the two state solution concentrated on the "Jerusalem issue" because they knew the importance of it for the Arab and Muslim world, but they ignored the Israeli settlement issue, and the "two state solution" issue as well, which was shot with Coup de Grace by Trump.

This silence means that the PA doesn't want to have a new battle with the new US administration. Behind this silence there is a hidden desire about the continuation of the negotiations.

What could draw the attention- in the same context - is that many people were attracted by a new illusion when they didn't differentiate between the «two state solution» and «an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty and its capital Jerusalem on the borders of June 4, 1967» «the national state in context of the national project». So when they couldn’t differentiate between the «two state solution» with its limited horizon and obvious goals, and the Palestinian national program with its national horizons and legitimate demands and inalienable rights, they rushed immediately to talk about the «one state solution» and they called to adopt it, as this solution will save the time in talking about the interim solutions and go directly to the permanent one, the one state solution, with a confusion between the one state of Netanyahu and the democratic state, which the Palestinian national program is calling for.

The "two state solution" is totally different from the "one state solution" as mentioned in the Palestinian National Program with its interim applications.

The Two State Solution doesn’t talk only about the state of Palestine but it talks about two states: which means it talks about Israel as well, it also calls for:

The recognition of Israel as a national state for Jewish people with all the repercussions and commitments of this recognition.

The reformulation of the borders of Israel to become« safe» which requires the deletion of the lines of the 4th of June, and adjust them through the annexation of settlements and the expansion of Israeli security sovereignty to include the most of area C (62%) of the west space.

It considers the «united Jerusalem» under the occupation a capital of these two states, which its borders are drawn by Israel with a guarantee of a full control over the city and separating some of its Palestinian Arabic neighborhoods to be the nominal capital of the Palestinian state.

It doesn't consider the Palestinian refugees as a part of the Palestinian people, but as refugees that their case will be resolved in accordance with alternative scenarios to their right of return. It based on the outcomes of Jun/67, not on the outcomes of the 1948 war.

It does not recognize the Palestinians inside Israel as a part of the Palestinian people (but they are the Arabs of Israel) unless an agreement is signed with the Palestinian side to exchange lands with populations. So transferring Palestinians that are within the Israeli entity to the edge of Palestinian state» will be for the annexation of settlements and settlers, and wide open spaces of the land of the West Bank and its groundwater wells, and its strategic hills to Israel.

It supposed to impose an international –Israeli control over the crossing points of the «Palestinian State», with Jordan, and the shores of Gaza. The aim of this control is avoid the flow of arms or refugees «terrorists» to this state.

It remains the Palestinian state under the domination of the full security system and the economy of the State of Israel, in light of economic protocols that allow to Israel to intervene in the Palestinian economic affairs under the pretext of preventing the turning of areas of the Palestinian State to sources of smuggling of goods to Israel.

In addition to all of these requirements and restrictions that clearly mean stripping the Palestinian state of all elements of national sovereignty over its; land, people , security and its economy, the map of the «two-state solution» took many different forms according to the many Israeli views. But they all met, despite the difference in the figures, in one subject, which is stripping this state of the possibility of «life» in isolation from the gluing to Israel on the one hand, and Jordan and Egypt on the other.

Some suggested that the Gaza Strip could be the «heart» of the Palestinian state, and its main station, in which there its capital (that eliminates the mysterious talk about «Jerusalem as the capital of two states»). And that the «West Bank Region» (as one of the regions of the State) will have a self-management under the Israeli domination. And thus the strip will head to the Egyptian state, its access to the outside, which supposes all forms of security, economic and customs coordination. The access of the West Bank will be Jordan on one hand, and Israel on the other hand, what also supposes a new form of cooperation, possibly leading to a formula of an economic security «confederation» and others.

Depending on this proposal, other similar proposals were built, all agreed on the calls to a Palestinian state , which is torn, fragmented, without a national economy, unable to be viable only with the enrollment to the nearby Arab and Israeli states, without making Israel holds any political, legal and moral burdens, and turning it from an occupying power, to a mere «neighbor» who cooperates with its Palestinian and Arab neighbors towards the full normalization of Arabic-Israel relations.

The evidences say that Clinton and Ehud Barak proposed at Camp David negotiations (2000) on the Palestinian side the «two-state solution» as an alternative to the Palestinian national program «return, self-determination and an independent state». Also they say that Bush Jr. re-proposed the «two-state solution» to justify his wars in the region against Afghanistan and Iraq, and his threats to Syria and his support to Israel's aggression attack against Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West.

The paradox is not only that the Palestinian team who caught the «two-state solution» as an alternative to the national project, in a bet that the Oslo agreement, under the care of US, will end up with a Palestinian state even if it is an incomplete sovereignty, especially on the security side. But some parties left the national program and joined the «two-state solution» as a possible solution in light of the balance of power and the existing conditions. And called for the adoption of it, as it got the international legitimacy approval, and thus it became the solution that is approved internationally. Then, the illusion fell and appeared that the «two-state solution» in its reality is a matter, and that the national solution is something else. The «two-state solution» is an illusion that is planted by American and Israeli circles in the minds of many in a short period, then in a blink of an eye at the right moment of the Zionist project, they dropped this illusion.

The irony is also that some of the parties, deliberately confused between the «two-state solution» and the «national project», despite the essential difference between the two projects, to escape again, toward some vague slogans, that tried to be behind the call for the single state, once because the settlement closed the road in front of the Palestinian state, and once to embarrass Israel in front of public opinion.

Now, Trump along with Netanyahu, have started to mourn the «two-state solution» and talking about what they called the «one state solution».

Is this the solution that some parties called for as an alternative to the Palestinian national interim program?

Moatasem Hamadeh is a member of the Political bureau of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Translated by: Rawan Al-Bash

Share |
copyright © 2004 - dflp-palestine.net