The more correct question to begin with is whether a two - state settlement has ever been possible and/or viable at anytime at all? It is a question that contains the answer within it. It is not possible and not viable. Why? Let me delineate the salient factors which dealt a severe blow to the idea of two-state:

First Factor—the long diplomatic paralysis and the impediment to a peaceful solution capable of yielding two independent and contiguous states, living side by side in the middle east, are embedded in the "peace progress" itself, and in the Zionist consensus. As long as terminating the Israeli occupation is not on the active Israeli agenda, and as long as the political forces across the Israeli spectrum are united in their rejection of a contiguous, viable and practicable Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel, the longest occupation in history will continue unabated. Peace has remained elusive as long as the 1967 occupation continued to be entrenched as a form of politicize (political genocide). The late Israeli sociologist. Baruch Kimmerling who authored a book by that title, defined politicize as a "process that has as its ultimate as a legitimate national, social. And economic entity, which may also include partial or total ethnic cleansing

[1]" Additionally, the late Tanya Rinehart expressed a similar view:

After thirty-five years of occupation, it is completely clear that the only two choices the Israeli political system has generated for the Palestinians are Apartheid or ethnic cleansing ('transfer'). Apartheid is the 'enlightened" Labor party's program ( as in the Allon or Oslo plan), while the other pole is advocating slow suffocation of the Palestinians, until the eventual 'transfer' ( mass expulsion) can be accomplished

[2].

Both authors, then, viewed the occupation (in this case politicize) as the single most important obstacle in the way of independence and liberation for the Palestinian people. Its goal is to destroy the political and national existence of a whole community of people. This is what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians people, persistently and methodically, between 1948 until present time—eradicating the very fabric of the Palestinian nation.

The process is still ongoing, having included the invasion of 1967, 1976, 1982, 2002( massacre of Jineen) 2006, and now the recent Gaza Massacre(2008/09, which involved the demolition of thousands of schools, mosques, hospitals, residential and commercial buildings, and United Nations facilities, and caused the death of more than 1400 Palestinians most of whom were civilians.

The conventional wisdom in the US and Israel is that the Israeli onslaught was a form of self-defense and retaliation for the lobbing of rockets by Hamas on Israeli Settlements in southern Palestine. In fact, none of the destruction was exactly retaliatory for the feeble Qassam rockets, or an exercise in self-defense; rather it was intended to break the Palestinian nation's spirit, to overwhelm its will to resist, and to smother its aspiration for full independence, restitution, and a dignified existence. As Sean McMahon put it in a recent article in counterpunch:

Properly historicized Israel's "massacre" to use the term Finkelstein deploys, of the people of Gaza is the most recent and directly violent articulation of this long and persistent process of politicize in Palestine

[3].

The Gaza massacre was not about Sderot, rockets, or breaking the cease-fire. They are but the latest phase of the ongoing was against the Palestinian people since 1948. But the Palestinians refuse to wither away; to forget their land; to give up their rights including the right to establish a sovereign, contiguous, and independent state. Hence, the use of the overwhelming military power, on the pretext that their democratically elected representatives are terrorists who inflict severe pain and suffering on Israeli settlers in Sderot and elsewhere.

The use of the overwhelming military power against predominantly Palestinians civilians is part and parcel of this politicize Thus; the national aspirations of the Palestinians for full independence have been inhabited, not only by military means, but also by diplomatic, bureaucratic, and demographic policies, all of which are component of politicize…

The single most important element of this politicize throughout these past four decades is diplomacy. American diplomacy has in recent years enabled Israel to achieve the goal of politicize by creating the illusion of a two state solution when that option has never been on Israel's real agenda.

In fact, the real function of the "peace process", has been to shelter Israel from the threat of peace. The peace process has enabled Israel to escape its obligations to the Palestinian people under international law, instead, such obligations have been effectively replaced by Israeli decrees presented as American peace initiatives.

Second factor which inhabited the two state settlement is that since the inception of this so-called peace process, Washington has been acting as peace maker, while at the same time it served as Israel's chief weapons supplier, bank roller, and diplomatic backer.

But if there was the slightest doubt that America's role was not that of an honest broker, that doubt was conclusively finished in January 2006, when the United States and Israel refused to accept Hamas's electoral victory. They were determined to undo that victory, first by the embargo and attempts at starvation and by abducting the top Hamas leadership, including many from Parliament, and by smashing its infrastructure while attempting to drive a wedge between the movement and that segment of the Palestinian population which gave Hamas their votes. The crux of the US -Israeli strategy is based on the faulty assumption that Hamas is part of the Middle east components of the " bad guys" engaged in global terror.

The Third Factor which undermined a diplomatic settlement that might have produced a Palestinian state coexisting with Israel is the Oslo process its, starting in 1993. In public, Oslo was supposed to usher in a two-state solution, but in fact it was intended to accomplish two menacing objectives for Israel and the united States, and even for Arafat: One was to eradicate the infrastructure of the first Intifada – to obliterate the emerging political and social culture of self-reliance, to do away with the "political committees" equivalent to the "parallel hierarchies" in Vietnam. These committees were a product of that culture which was aiming to render the 1967 occupation not only unacceptable, but also not possible.

That culture, which emphasized people's power, frowned on cronyism, and rewarded merit. Consequently, it was abhorred by Yasser Arafat and his cronies. The Intifada threatened to replace the old order with a new type of governance based on egalitarianism, meritocracy and equal opportunity. Therein lay the interest of three strange bedfellows( Israel, the US and Arafat). Oslo was their common denominator, but unlike the Oslo envisioned by the Europeans who invented it, this has proven to be an arrangement which dealt a severe bow to the two-state option.

Oslo's second real objective was buying time for Israel to continue its massive land grab under "peaceful" conditions. Oslo has also allowed the expansion of Jerusalem's satellites (Gilo, Maaleh Adumim, and Jebel Abu Ghoneim) Vast amount of land were confiscated and thousands of people were dispossessed after the Oslo signing. In 1993 when Oslo was signed, there were 109,000 settlers in the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem. Today, that number is 275,000 settlers living in 230 colonies. There are 625 checkpoints representing 70% increase since 2005. Meanwhile, 200,2000 Jews are living in East Jews are living in East Jerusalem today. Such a reality is so far away from the normalization which Israel seeks and the US endorses. True normalization, however, can only be envisioned in the context of terminating the occupation in accordance with resolution 242.

The Fourth Factor which contributed to the demise of the two-state option is that one cannot fully understand the current hopelessness of the two-state settlement without knowing the patterns of geographical (and other) Judaization of '48 Palestine, or without understanding the Galilee: Upper Nazareth; Carmiel and the logically ensuring 'mitzpim' ( a horrible word which connotes, linguistically and geographically prison towers from which to keep track of the Palestinians made landless and day labourers and of whom, in another context and historical period, General Eytan referred to as drugged roaches in a bottle); the devastation of Wadi Ara; the erasure( almost complete) of the Palestinian existence on the Carmel and on the sea coast, one cannot understand the so-called separation wall. All these ( and there are more examples) have been paradigms of what began in 1967 under the Israeli labour party in the West Bank. Furthermore, egregious through this wall is on every human front possible, without seeing that the combined design of Ma'aleh Adumim, Jabal abu Ghanaim, Gilo and the stealth taker-over of the Hebron region have, at least de facto (and de jure is not far behind), changed the definition of Jerusalem, not long from now, the entire West Bank will, in some juridical way, be related to what is cleverly referred to as"Greater Jerusalem" of the Jewish State. Peace, therefore, will not be at hand as long as the ailing peae process fails to incorporate the essentials of the Palestine question: the 1948 Nakba is not recognized for what it is- a form of ethnic cleansing, a colonial enterprise which covets the land without the people.

Genuine independence had already been ruled out by the agreement between Labor and Likud un January 1997, which insists on but a single sovereignty(Israeli) in the area between the river and the sea. But despite that veto on an independent Palestinians state, Israel had agreed in Phase II of the Road Map to the establishment of such a state by 2003, "with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty". The Palestinian leadership was obligated to act "decisively against terror," and demonstrate willingness and ability to "build a practicing democracy."

The important question is where and how was that state to be established? How can it be viable if it is not contiguous? The West Bank is already fractured into three Bantustans and each one of those Bantustans has been fragmented into some 60-70 enclaves separated by the Apartheid Wall, Jewish settlement, and infrastructure and check points. Moreover, the apartheid wall currently under construction in the West Bank and around metropolitan Jerusalem is already separating Palestinians from their agricultural land, schools, hospital, relatives, neighbors , jobs and other centers of life. It has also facilitated the ongoing creeping ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and insured non-contiguity particularly when the eastern wall links up with the wall presently under construction

[4].

Will this gloomy picture change under President Obama?

Will Senator Mitchell restore the Two-state option?

No peace process will succeed unless there is a sharp break from the Clinton and Bush administration habits of acting as Israel's "attorney," unconditional apologist and defender, arms supplier and financier. US domestic politics is a double-edged sword. Irish America helped the Northern Ireland peace process by encouraging the Us to apply pressure on behalf of the weaker side, leveling the playing field for meaningful negotiations, the pro-Israel lobby by contrast, has blocked peace by weighing the scales even more radically in favor of Israel. There can be no real negotiations when there is so much inequality of power and influence . Obama's pledge to grant Israel the already promised $30 billion in military aid is a case in point

[5].

The Two-State Solution requires:

A complete, rapid and guaranteed end to Israeli military occupation, presence, remote control, blockade and siege from all the territories occupied in June 1967 including east Jerusalem;

Land occupied by Israeli settlers/settlement to be returned to Palestine;

The removal or integration of settlers into the Palestinian state;

Guaranteed free movement without Israeli interference between the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Full political and economic sovereignty and equality for the Palestinian state; But none of these requirement are in the offing. We might be left with the One-State Solution.

Within a few years, Palestinians will constitute the absolute majority in all the territories today controlled by Israel. Already, the prospect of a workable and durable two-state solution are doubtful. Israel's right wing foreign minister, Lieberman called a two-state solution a nice slogan that lacks substance

[6].

Ultimately it must be admitted that the core of this conflict – like In Northern Ireland – is about a lack of equality and a gross imbalance of power and rights and any solution, whether based on one state or two cannot work unless it guarantees equality.

No Comments ...

Dear Viewer Be The First To Comment On This Article !! Welcome To Al-Hourriah

Name *
Email *
City
Comment *
Code *
Add