Seeking New Solutions

A week or so on from Lieberman’s rejection of the Annapolis process for a two state solution other government ministers have now also spoken out against negotiations based on a two state solution. While Lieberman argued Annapolis not to be binding upon the new administration for technical reasons, and strictly speaking he is quite right, both Lieberman and the government ministers have rejected this proposal because of its consistent failure to bare fruits.

Ever since the early 1990s and right up until the end of the Olmert administration in 2009 Israeli governments have been offering negotiation based upon the principle of ‘two states for two peoples’. Yet consistently the Palestinian leadership has failed to reciprocate the necessary compromises to make these negotiations successful and this has been demonstrated most clearly when, in recent weeks, the ruling Palestinian party Fatah announced that it doesn’t recognise Israel and indeed never has done. Of course as well as this unwillingness for coexistence politically terrorism has also consistently derailed attempts for a two state solution.

Back in 2000 when Israel offered the Palestinians essentialy exactly what they were demanding and they rejected the proposal (demonstrating that the Palestinians could have their own State by now if they really wanted it) the Palestinians didn’t offer a counter proposal but unleashed the second intifada. More recently Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Gaza has been seen as an act of weakness rather than as gestures for reconciliation and from both these places Hizbollah and Hamas rained rockets down on Israeli civilians. And if that record weren’t enough just a few weeks ago a terrorist attack in Haifa that would have killed hundreds was averted at the last minute. Yet this attempt wasn’t carried out by groups from Gaza or militants acting in solidarity with the Palestinians of the West Bank but rather by a group calling for the ‘liberation of the Galilee’. This of course is a region of Israel that is situated within its pre-1967 borders and where Arabs enjoy full citizenship along with the right to vote and stand for election and receive full welfare benefits. However the Arabs living here, who would be part of Israel even under the most generous of two state solutions, still reject being part of Israel and insist on waging war upon it.

These are the reasons why so far a two state solution hasn’t come about. Yet there are much more important and deep reasons why there should never be a two state solution. While there may be two peoples demanding two states there are not two lands to give them and states are dependent upon territory. Not only is there a real lack of space for two viable states but there is also a lack of many other things. For instance the area that constitutes pre-1967 Israel is 60% desert and Israel gets much of its water supply from beneath the Judean hills which are situated in the West Bank. Equally on the other side the West Bank and Gaza strip constitute a tiny and discontiguous territory. And while Gaza is desperately overcrowded much of the West Bank is also predominantly desert or rocky hills unsuitable for agriculture or significant population. At the same time both countries would insist upon having Jerusalem as a capital. Cities have been divided before, as seen with Berlin, but this was hardly a preferable or long term arrangement. Furthermore Jerusalem, which has had a Jewish majority for over 160 years, would predominantly go to Israel, the proportion given to a Palestinian state would be negligible but would occupy key Jewish religious/historic sites as well as major strategic positions.

The West Bank and Gaza strip do not offer the potential of a viable Palestinian state meaning any state created there would be a failed one. Such a state would no doubt build on existing radicalism that refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist and would almost certainly continue demands for the descendants of those claiming to be refugees to relocate to Israel, reversing its Jewish character and acting as a hostile population from within. It is also probable that because of its territorial problems this state would demand territory transfer to the lines of the proposed UN 1946 partition plan, or at the very least the annexation of the areas of the Galilee with Arab populations. Either way it is ridiculous to claim that these two states would peacefully coexist side by side. Israel’s new borders would be indefensible, both from any terrorist attacks that would go unprevented by a weak or indifferent Palestinian government or more likely by a radical Islamic administration backed by Iran. From the West Bank hills Israel’s coastal strip, just nine miles across at its narrowest point, would be fully reachable by missile attack. The country’s primary population centres and industrial heartland as well as Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ben Gurion Airport would all be in the firing line. Arguments that this time Palestinians would finally relinquish attacking Israel because now they’d have something to lose fall short considering what has already happened in Gaza and the fact that once this second state is created the decision could never realistically be reversed. This new state would become a second Gaza, where Islamist militants seized power and without Israeli military forces to intervene rapidly turned the whole area into a terror training centre and missile launch pad.

The Ministers of Transport and the Interior who have joined Lieberman in rejecting the futile Annapolis process and called for an abandonment of the two state solution have apparently realised the reality of the above scenario. Clearly then alternative solutions need to be explored but like Netanyahu and many others all these Ministers have so far proposed is the ‘Economic solution’; the argument that greater economic independence and improvement for the Palestinians will some how end the conflict. Yet not only will trying to improve the Palestinian economy fail to end Palestinian grievance or satisfy any of their demands it will also only increase their ability to fund terror and lessen the likelihood of any real Palestinian emigration.

Meanwhile one Labour MK has denounced these opinions because of how it may antagonise Europe and America, arguing that the whole world supports the Annapolis process. Yet Israel is not the communal property of the whole world but a sovereign state with a democratically elected government and the legitimacy to determine its own destiny. Just because the rest of the world has failed to notice the tiny area of territory it proposes carving into two countries or the reality of Israel’s situation in favour of a quick fix solution, doesn’t mean Israel should be bound to foreign dictates.