With ‘Palestine’ determined to seek statehood from the UN in September and increasing pressure on Israel following its refusal to allow a humanitarian mission to enter Gaza, prospects would appear to be good for the hopes of a two-state solution. However, despite these recent glimmers of hope, it remains a more realistic prospect that a one-state outcome will materialise.
The latest Freedom for Gaza convoy, currently confined in Greek harbours, has once again brought light to the predicament facing the Palestinian people. With Israeli authorities refusing to allow aid to enter the Gaza Strip, it signals a clear unwillingness to accept Palestine as a separate and viable state. Israel claims that the naval blockade is designed to eradicate the chances of Hamas obtaining weapons; weapons that could potentially be used to ‘destroy’ Israel.
What has not helped the current situation is America’s contradictory rhetoric. President Obama speaks as if an end to the Israeli-Palestine conflict is his number one priority, yet has described Palestine’s efforts to seek UN recognition as “a mistake”. Members of Obama’s administration have undermined this view. US special envoy George Mitchell has stated, “We believe that the two-state solution is the best and only way to resolve this conflict”.
The main issue is that America, as a permanent Security Council member, has the power to veto any General Assembly vote on the matter. Theoretically, they hold all the aces. The Palestinians are bargaining on America abstaining from any vote. Interestingly, America represents one quarter of the Middle East Peace Quartet – along with the EU, Russia and the UN – that committed itself to achieving a two-state solution by September 2011.
Regrettably, a two-state solution, however desirable, is simply no longer a practical notion. Whilst it should be possible for two nations to live peacefully, side-by-side, too much water has passed under this adverse bridge. As ever, the main obstacle appears to be Israel. Due to unremitting settlement building on the West Bank, it now seems impossible for Palestine to have a state of its own. Jewish settlers would undoubtedly resist the removal of their homes.
Area C remains the real conundrum. Area C makes up 60% of the West Bank. Israel, under international law, illegally occupies the land. Much of this land is under construction. Further “new homes for Jews” are being planned, despite being illegal under both international and Israeli law. Under a two-state solution, these settlements would have to be demolished. So why continue to build? Does it sound like Israel are planning for a Palestinian state?
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks of a willingness to make “painful compromises” to “achieve historic peace” whilst visiting nations on diplomatic tours, yet, when safely at home, approves plans to build a further 900 building units in Gilo, totally contradicting his encouraging message abroad. A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Nabil Abu Rdainah, stated that the authorisation had “shattered any attempt to lay down foundations that can lead to a real peace”.
Subsequent to former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat unilaterally declaring a separate Palestinian state in 1988, over 100 nations now recognise the State of Palestine. Of these, most are Arab, Communist and non-aligned states. The majority of European countries, despite conducting official relations with the Palestinian National Authority, still refuse to recognise the State of Palestine.
Significantly, three of the Middle East Peace Quartet – America, the EU and the UN – do not recognise the State of Palestine. This will undoubtedly make things hard for Palestinian officials seeking official statehood from the UN. That is why a one-state declaration remains the only realistic end result. Until relevant nations begin standing up to Israel against their flawed and problematic ‘defence’ argument, Palestine shall remain ‘Palestine’.
Even Israeli President Shimon Peres pointed out in 2009, “Israel’s safety is not embedded only in territorial defence but in peace”. This contests the argument made by many Israeli’s that Israel will only be 6miles wide in some areas, leaving them vulnerable to attack. He correctly surmised that a peaceful existence between the two countries would eliminate the need for a defence. But Peres’ voice is a lone one. His views are not shared by Netanyahu.
September marks D-day for the Palestinians, but it is feared that Israel’s many allies shall pull together and unite against the State of Palestine. Reasons, such as Israel’s right to defend themselves, will be exploited in order to justify suppressing the Palestinian population. Illegal Jewish settlements will continue to be erected and Israel’s apartheid shall persist. But for how long can the Palestinian people persevere and for how long can this deplorable chapter in history continue? Time will tell.
The real question remains, will there ever be an end to this conflict? Possibly, but the longer it goes on the more likely a one-state solution seems probable. America’s unwillingness to cut ties with Israel, teamed with the West’s refusal to challenge Israel’s questionable policies – Greece being the latest example – means that Israel shall more than likely continue to dictate proceedings in the foreseeable future.
Join the Conversation