There is no "Two State Solution" (And the problem is not Israel)
According to news reports today, Abu Mazen said the Palestinians would not restart peace talks with Israel until the new Israeli government accepts the "two-state solution." He added that Israel also "would have to stop building in West Bank settlements and remove roadblocks" in order to resume talks. Sounds like a man who doesn't want talks.
The usage, "building IN...settlements" is important. The United States has said that Israel should not build new "settlements" (we have an argument with that, but let's stay on topic) and should remove those tiny communities of Jews that were not authorized by the Israeli government - the "illegal outposts." Israel assumes the right to accommodate natural growth inside the cities of the West Bank that both the United States and Israel have agreed constitute "major settlement blocs" that Israel would retain after the Final Status Agreement. Even the Gang of Ten (see JINSA Report #873) called for, "An Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, with the exception of large settlement blocs."
Abu Mazen is stretching here to ban the building of new homes inside Israeli towns, assuming Israel will reject the idea and save him from the negotiations he fears. Instead, let us stretch as well. We know that in Israeli eyes - and generally in American eyes - the putative Palestinian state would someday be comprised of the West Bank (minus the large settlement blocs plus some territorial swap), Gaza and some arrangement for Jerusalem.
On the other hand, Arafat never had any vision of "Palestine" other than everything between the River and the Sea. That is what Palestinian maps of "Palestine" show. That is what killed Camp David II in 2000 - when Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton offered more territory, more political accommodation in Jerusalem, and had fewer Jews on the West Bank. Arafat walked out. He maintained until he died that there was no mandate for any Palestinian leader to "give up" any part of "historic Palestine."
If Abu Mazen rejects the Arafat formulation and believes there is a "two state solution," where would HE put the border? What land would be available after a Final Status Agreement for a legitimate, sovereign, secure and independent State of Israel? What land that Arafat called "holy" is Abu Mazen prepared to say would NOT be available for Palestinians to exercise their so-called "right of return" because the Government of Israel would be entitled to determine who lives inside Israel?
The Galilee Triangle? Haifa? Tel Aviv? Sderot?
Modi'in? Be'er Sheva? Abu Ghosh? B'nai B'rak?
JINSA believes the "two state solution" is not responsive to the present situation in which there are three governing entities between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea - one of which, Hamas, is engaged in a shooting war with both of the others. But to make clear the parameters of the problem, President Obama should engage Abu Mazen on his view of two states, and how he plans to reconcile his apparent agreement that Israel is a legitimate country with his brothers in Hamas and the legacy of Yasser Arafat.
The problem is not Israel.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment