To Israel’s horror, Hamas brings ‘two-state solution’ back into focus

MAY 2, 2024

Source

A Cradle Contributor

Not only has Israel failed to defeat Hamas, but it is being dragged into discussions on Palestinian statehood, which its Gaza genocide has put back onto the international agenda.

After seven months of a brutal military assault on Gaza, it is abundantly clear that Israel has not succeeded in eradicating Hamas. Instead of delivering a decisive military victory, the occupation state finds itself being drawn kicking and screaming into negotiations over a two-state solution. 

Withstanding the impracticality of establishing a genuinely independent, sovereign Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, this scenario is becoming increasingly likely despite long-standing opposition from the Israeli government. It is an extraordinary development, particularly as Tel Aviv’s strategy, as articulated by foreign policy advisor Ophir Falk, was mainly to “destroy Hamas” and its military and governance capabilities entirely.

Today, the two-state option is frantically being resuscitated in Washington, of all places, and by stalwart allies of Tel Aviv.

Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel and staunch supporter of the occupation state, argues in Foreign Affairs magazine that far from being “dead,” the two-state solution now looks to be the only reasonable game in town:

“The reason for this revival is not complicated. There are, after all, only a few possible alternatives to the two-state solution. There is Hamas’ solution, which is the destruction of Israel. There is the Israeli ultra-right’s solution, which is the Israeli annexation of the West Bank, the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the deportation of Palestinians to other countries. There is the ‘conflict management’ approach pursued for the last decade or so by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which aimed to maintain the status quo indefinitely – and the world has seen how that worked out. And there is the idea of a binational state in which Jews would become a minority, thus ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state. None of those alternatives would resolve the conflict – at least not without causing even greater calamities. And so if the conflict is to be resolved peacefully, the two-state solution is the only idea left standing.“

Disarmament for statehood? 

In widely publicized comments last week, Khalil al-Hayya, deputy head of Hamas in Gaza, has appeared to endorse the 1967 borders for a future Palestinian state explicitly. 

In a recent interview with AP, Hayya spoke of “a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the return of Palestinian Authority (PA) in accordance with the international resolutions” along Israel’s pre-1967 borders.

Most significantly, though, he hinted that the resistance movement’s military wing, Al-Qassam Brigades, could potentially dissolve itself and/or fold its cadres into a Palestinian national army:

“All the experiences of people who fought against occupiers, when they became independent and obtained their rights and their state, what have these forces done? They have turned into political parties and their defending fighting forces have turned into the national army.“

Instead of embracing these possibilities, Falk dismissed Hayya as a “high-ranking terrorist” and sought to redirect the conversation back to intransigent Israeli demands: 

“Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government set a mission to destroy Hamas’ military and governing capabilities in Gaza, free the hostages, and ensure that Gaza does not pose a threat to Israel and the rest of the civilized world in the future,” he said, adding, “Those goals will be achieved.”

Diplomacy in Doha and Istanbul 

Although Hayya emphasized that his views are aligned with Hamas’ historical positions, as articulated by the resistance movement’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 1998 and reiterated in its 2017 charter of general principles and policies, his public statements highlight the immense political pressures faced by Hamas, notably from political allies Qatar and Turkiye. 

These pressures aim to foster high-level international and regional talks that could potentially end the conflict and establish ‘permanent stability.’ As with any negotiation, there are essential questions to address: Who will have the authority to enforce these terms? What limitations will be imposed? These are critical issues for Palestinians besieged in Gaza and for their broader cause – as well as for Al-Qassam and the entire resistance.

Behind the scenes, both Qatar and Turkiye have been instrumental in shaping Hamas’ new diplomatic approach. The movement’s external leaders, including Khaled Meshal and Ismail Haniyeh, have participated in discussions facilitated by both countries in Doha and Istanbul. 

Earlier this month, in a joint press conference with his Qatari counterpart, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, Turkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan was explicitly supportive, also highlighting the west’s positive stance toward intensifying peace efforts based on the two-state solution.

“In our political talks with Hamas for years, they have accepted a Palestinian state to be established within the 1967 borders,” Fidan told reporters. 

“They have told me that following the establishment of the Palestinian state, Hamas would no longer need an armed wing and they would continue as a political party,” he added.

The ball is in Israel’s court 

Although Israel’s western allies have long sought to exclude Hamas from any and all Palestinian processes, it has become abundantly clear that Gaza’s military leadership, particularly Al-Qassam Brigades, is set to play a crucial role in any negotiation process. 

This is an extraordinary victory of sorts for Hamas, which has successfully managed to insert itself into future deliberations, not only on Gaza but Palestine as a whole. The movement’s tactical decision to endorse the 1967 borders not only aims to position Hamas as a credible negotiator but also strategically corners the far-right coalition government of Benjamin Netanyahu. 

By signaling willingness to demilitarize in exchange for statehood, Hamas aims to place the onus on Tel Aviv, toying with the inherent vulnerability of its coalition government and potentially precipitating its collapse. This move not only improves Hamas’ leverage in any forthcoming negotiations but, ironically, also aligns with the US interests in seeing regime change in Israel. 

It is clear that Hamas has – whether out of conviction, under pressure, or as a wily tactic – become a necessary partner in broader and long-term political negotiations concerning the future of Palestine and the region. 

Over the years, the movement has itself been compelled to engage in several rounds of indirect negotiations with Israel, most notably at the end of the first decade of the millennium when Hamas was still based in Damascus. That was part of a larger regional effort spurred by Ankara to rejuvenate the peace process. 

Twenty-six years ago, Khaled Meshaal met with former US President Jimmy Carter in Damascus during the latter’s nine-day West Asia tour aimed at breaking the deadlock between Israel and Hamas early in their governance of Gaza. 

The Palestinian resistance movement enjoyed considerable leeway for political maneuvering due to the geopolitical climate at the time. Carter reported that Hamas expressed willingness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders if agreed upon by the Palestinians and acknowledged Israel’s right to exist peacefully as a neighboring state. 

Compelling Israel to do Hamas’ will 

But today, Hamas’ renewed strength comes from two main factors:  the relentless, unified military pushback by the region’s Axis of Resistance in support of their Palestinian allies and unprecedented global condemnation of Israel’s Gaza genocide – both sharply impacting and confounding Tel Aviv’s initial, over-confident war objectives. 

Rather than defeating Hamas, Israel now finds itself on the back foot, engaging in negotiations that center around the one outcome it had least expected – that of a two-state solution. 

Tel Aviv’s disturbing dilemma also showcases the political acumen of Hamas and the Palestinian resistance, who recognized the utility of hard power in achieving political ends rather than as an end in itself – in sharp contrast to Israel’s approach throughout this conflict. 

The fact that, seven months after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Hamas retains its array of capabilities signifies not only the abject failure of Israel’s military and political objectives but also an unexpected humbling of Tel Aviv. Israel, today, is being forced into negotiations on Palestinian statehood that it has assiduously avoided for 30 long years. 

This shift is undoubtedly energized by the unprecedented US student protest movement and other anti-colonial voices around the world, adding a global dimension to the local struggle. These developments are yet another ace in the hand for Hamas and another nail in the coffin for Israeli leverage.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

ماذا تعرض واشنطن ويرفض نتنياهو؟

السبت 16 كانون الأول 2023

ناصر قنديل

يبدو الكلام سريالياً عندما نقول إن الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن ليس جدياً على الإطلاق في السعي لحل الدولتين الذي يصرّح به صباحاً ومساء، وأنه في الوقت ذاته على أعلى درجات الجدية في جعل مشروع حل الدولتين عموداً فقرياً للمشروع الأميركي لإنهاء الحرب في غزة، وأنه في الوقت الذي لا يختلف بايدن عن بنيامين نتنياهو ولا معه لجهة التمسك بالحفاظ على القدس عاصمة موحّدة لكيان الاحتلال وحماية المستوطنات في الضفة الغربية تحت سيطرة الاحتلال، ومثلها غور الأردن، لكنه يختلف معه كثيراً في الاعتقاد أنه بات مستحيلاً الفوز بالحرب العسكرية، وأنه لا بد من مناورة سياسية كبرى تُعيد خلط الأوراق، وتنقل المأزق الذي يخيم فوق رأسي أميركا و»إسرائيل»، الى الضفة المقابلة التي تشمل الفلسطينيين بكل مكوناتهم السياسية، وخصوصاً السلطة الفلسطينية وحركة حماس، ثم بينهما وبين المحيط العربي الصديق لواشنطن وخصوصاً مصر والسعودية.

من زاوية النظر الأميركية أن الهزيمة العسكرية وقعت، وأن العزلة الدولية وقعت أيضاً، ولكنها تعتقد أن استرداد زمام المبادرة السياسي والعسكري، وتعويض الخسائر واحتواء المأزق أمر ممكن. وجوهر ما تتبناه واشنطن يقوم على السعي لتقديم التطبيع مع السعودية كثمن يستحق القبول بمبدأ حل الدولتين، والسعي لتعزيز السلطة الفلسطينية بوجه حماس وقوى المقاومة. وتعتقد واشنطن أنه بدلاً من صيغة المبادرة العربية للسلام التي كان فيها التطبيع جائزة عربية يجري تقديمها لكيان الاحتلال لقاء سلة تتضمن قيام دولة فلسطينية على الأراضي المحتلة عام 67 وعاصمتها القدس، ثمّة فرصة لتقديم جائزة إسرائيلية للعرب لقاء التطبيع السعودي خصوصاً، والجائزة هي وقف الحرب على غزة ومبدأ دولة فلسطينية دون التزام بحدودها والتعهّد بمصير القدس فيها، والاكتفاء بكونها منزوعة السلاح، وأن «إسرائيل» مستعدّة لتسليم غزة للسلطة الفلسطينية تحت وصاية عربية مصرية سعودية، سوف يضمن مساراً جديداً ينقل المأزق إلى الضفة المقابلة.

يتطلع الأميركيون الى قيادة إسرائيلية تلاقيهم في هذا المشروع لإطلاق ديناميكية تعتقد أنه يتم خلاله بيع وقف حرب فاشلة تحتاج إلى البحث عن مخرج لوقفها، وهذا يعني تقديم لا شيء، بل شراء مخرج مقابل لا شيء، وأنه عبر هذا المشروع سوف يتمّ استرداد ما تمّت خسارته في العلاقات الدولية والشارع الغربي، وفتح الباب الواسع لمفاوضات سعودية إسرائيلية علنية تحت عنوان التطبيع، سوف يمثل إغراء يمنح القيادة الاسرائيلية التي تنجزه ثمناً كافياً تقدمه لمجموع المستوطنين في الكيان كبديل عن النصر الموعود في الحرب، بينما تتمكّن خلاله السعودية من تقديم سيرها بالتطبيع كثمن لاسترداد ما فشل سواها بتحصيله من الحقوق للفلسطينيين، وتتهم خلاله حماس وقوى المقاومة بالعبثيّة والمغامرة، وتشارك السعودية ومصر مع أميركا وأوروبا برعاية مفاوضات إسرائيلية مع السلطة الفلسطينية تحت عنوان حل الدولتين، يجري خلالها تأجيل بحث القدس وحق العودة، واعتبار الانطلاق من حكومة موحدة وأجهزة أمن موحدة تتسلم غزة ومناطق سيطرة السلطة في الضفة نقطة بداية ضرورية، يعقبها مع استقرار الوضع الأمني لسنوات البحث بتوسيع نطاق جغرافية سيطرة السلطة إلى مناطق جديدة، يطرح خلالها تبادل الأراضي بين الضفة والنقب، وإذا كانت مفاوضات تطبيق اتفاق أوسلو استهلكت ثلاثين عاماً فلم لا نستهلك مثلها مجدداً.

نتنياهو ومعه نسبة غير قليلة من ساسة الكيان وقادته العسكريين، يشكّكون بالوردية التي تمثلها السردية الأميركية، ويرون أن دونها عقد كثيرة، أهمها أن حماس وقوى المقاومة تملك قدرة الرفض والتعطيل، وبيدها ورقتان مهمتان؛ الأولى القدرة على مهاجمة قوات الاحتلال في مناطق انتشارها في غزة وبصورة تجعل بقاءها مستحيلاً، وتسليمها لاحقاً للسلطة الفلسطينية مستحيلاً. والثانية ورقة الأسرى التي لن تفرط بها حماس وقوى المقاومة، إذا استشعرت وجود مؤامرة تستهدفها من أي إطار سياسي يفترض ان يتم الإفراج عن الأسرى من ضمنه، ووفقاً لرؤية نتنياهو ومن يؤيده، أن ما سيحدث هو أن «إسرائيل»، سوف تكون قد تنازلت عن رفضها حلّ الدولتين دون أن تحصل على شيء. فالأمن سوف يبقى بيد حماس وقوى المقاومة وكذلك الأسرى، والتطبيع لن يمضي قدماً إلا على إيقاع خطوات عملية على طريق قيام الدولة الفلسطينية، وقضية القدس عقبة كافية لإحراج السعودية والسلطة الفلسطينية ودفعها للتراجع. والحديث عن دولة فلسطينية منزوعة السلاح لا يُبنى عليه شيء، لأن غزة بعد تركها عام 2005 كانت منزوعة السلاح عملياً، باستثناء ما سيكون مسموحاً للدولة الفلسطينية تحت عنوان حفظ الأمن، وهي اليوم ترسانة سلاح نوعي، رغم الحصار، وتجربة السلطة الفلسطينية في الضفة الغربية تقول أنها تضمحل أمام كل من يدعو للمقاومة، لأن المزاج الفلسطيني الشعبي والشبابي، خصوصاً ليس مزاجاً يمكن رشوته بأحاديث السلام.

لا يمانع نتنياهو بالاتفاق على إدارة الحرب بدلاً من تصعيدها، وربطها بأكثر من هدنة يتم خلالها تبادل الأسرى، لكن بديله هو حرب مستمرّة لسنوات، في غزة وعلى جبهة لبنان، لا تصل إلى الحرب الشاملة الا باتفاق أميركي إسرائيلي. وبين هذين المشروعين تدور انقسامات داخل الكيان، وتصاغ تسويات أيضاً بالمقابل، وتستمر الحرب وتحديات جبهة غزة وجبهات المساندة في لبنان والعراق وسورية والبحر الأحمر، بصورة يفقد جيش الاحتلال معها مزيداً من الخسائر الجسيمة مع خسارة صورة التفوق العسكري، وتفقد أميركا كل يوم صورة الردع التي تحرص عليها، خصوصاً في الممرات المائيّة، وأهمها البحر الأحمر.

فيديوات متعلقة

هام جدا – السيناريو الأميركي الجدي لانهاء الحرب

جدوى جبهات المساندة لغزة ؟

اسرائيل لا تعتدي وتلتزم بالعهود؟؟؟؟؟؟؟ مثال اتفاقاتها مع مصر والأردن!!!!!!!!
أسئلة عن الحرب والهدنة -31-

مقالات متعلقة

• أسطورة شعب… ومجرم حرب!
• شهيد «قومي سوري» على طريق القدس
• غالبية فلسطينية مطلقة تؤيّد المقاومة : «حماس» لا تفقد شعبيتها… والسلطة منبوذة
• لبنان: المقاومة تستهدف تجمعات جنود العدو في المنارة.. وخارج ثكنة “راميم”
• كاميرا الميادين ترصد انعدام الحركة في مستوطنة “المطلة”.. أي رعب خلقته “قوة الرضوان”؟
• تل أبيب «تطنّش» نصائح واشنطن: لن تبقى سلطة حتى «نجدّدها»
• الكلام الأميركي عن القنابل الذكية…قنبلة غبية بامتياز
• أميركا تقترح «الاغتيالات المركّزة»: إسرائيل تقتل أسراها
• كاميرا الميادين ترصد انعدام الحركة في مستوطنة “المطلة”.
• مسيّرة لحزب الله تستهدف تجمعاً للاحتلال خارج “راميم”.. والأخير يصف الحادثة بالخطرة
• إعلام العدو: واشنطن تدفع لصفقة تبادل أسرى جديدة مع المقاومة
• مسيرات تضامنية مع غزة في دول عربية وإسلامية
• سريع: استهدفنا سفينتي حاويات كانتا متجهتين إلى كيان الاحتلال
• جيش الاحتلال يقاتل بأجيال حرب القرن الماضي
• لقاء باريس بلا جدوى: ماكرون يريد دوراً في غزّة

Diverging paths: The US-Israel divide over post-war Gaza

DEC 15, 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Hasan Illaik

The Israeli occupation state may have received Washington’s infinite blessings and arms for its genocidal war, but deep disagreements over the after-plan for Gaza and the political fate of the Palestinians have risen to the surface.

Amid the backdrop of the occupation state receiving blessings and arms from Washington for its genocidal war, both domestic political hurdles in the US and on-the-ground military dynamics have created a rift, influencing both strategic considerations and the course of the war in Gaza.

Israel’s ongoing war on the Gaza Strip is best understood to be a US-backed one, given that the occupation state has the political, economic, and military support of Washington as it commits genocidal acts of state terrorism on the Palestinians.

On multiple occasions, these actions have received approval from the Biden administration. However, recent statements indicate a growing unease within the US, suggesting that Israel’s actions may be crossing a line that is becoming increasingly challenging to justify and defend.

However, it is noteworthy that President Joe Biden warned Israel relatively early on, back in October, not to make the same “mistakes” as the US did following the events of 11 September 2001, which led to the occupation of Afghanistan and the longest war in US history.

Divergent approaches to shared goals

Biden has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to alter the composition of his extremist government to facilitate acceptance of the US proposal for the post-war phase in Gaza. This proposal involves handing over the administration of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and initiating a political process culminating in a theoretical “two-state solution.”

The specific ministers Biden seeks to see removed – Treasury Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, along with their associates – are rightly considered by the US as extremists and as obstacles to a revival of the notion of a two-state solution, widely considered to be dead.

Despite Biden’s latest statements urging Israel to “be more careful” in protecting civilians in Gaza while supposedly targeting the resistance, there is no indication of a major dispute between the US and Israel over the ongoing war.

Washington remains actively involved in the conflict, having deployed military assets in the West Asia region to protect Israel during its war crimes in Gaza.

The US continues to supply the Israeli occupation forces with the necessary weapons and ammunition, showcasing a shared goal with Israel but an ever so slight divergence in the approach to achieving that goal.

Yesterday, The Intercept revealed that the Biden administration had deployed a so-called Tiger Team of experts to speed up the supply of weapons to Israel.

Biden’s diplomacy and arms sales

The underlying issues between the US and Israel primarily revolve around four factors. First, with the US presidential primaries approaching, a significant portion of the Democratic Party’s base opposes the administration’s support for the Israeli war on Gaza.

Consequently, the Biden administration is undertaking a “public diplomacy” campaign to distance itself from the perceived destructive effects of the war while maintaining support for arms sales to Israel.

In short, Biden wants to say that he does not approve of the killing of so many civilians in the war on Gaza, while he approves of the sale of 14,000 tank shells to the Israeli army.

Second, the United States wants to ensure that Israel achieves its military goals in Gaza, but the two disagree over the political future of the Strip. The US seeks to ensure that Israel’s post-war objectives align with its interests. While Netanyahu aims to occupy the entire Gaza Strip and establish an alternative civilian authority with regional funding, the US advocates for a two-state solution and opposes the exclusion of the PA from administering the territory.

Third, what is happening in the region, spanning from Yemen to Lebanon and Iraq, has contributed to US fears of a larger war, or at least, “comprehensive regional chaos.” The increasing tensions in West Asia threaten to escalate at any moment. US threats have not prevented Israel’s enemies from increasing the level of attacks used in their military operations.
Washington believes that decreasing the intensity of the air and ground campaigns on Gaza will prevent Israel’s regional enemies from escalating their attacks.

Thus, changing the form of the war and reducing its intensity would allow Israel to complete its mission amid regional calm, supported by the ‘normalizer’ Arab countries and the majority of world governments.

Fourth, the United States does not trust Israel’s ability to achieve complete victory through a military operation, which is why it is seeking a political path in order to accomplish goals that cannot be fulfilled on the battlefield.

Netanyahu does not hide his intentions for a complete occupation of the Gaza Strip. His aim is to starve its people to pressure the resistance into surrendering, then to establish a “civil authority” to manage the Strip in coordination with the occupying army.

Allies of Israel, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are expected to finance this authority and contribute to reconstruction. Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized his refusal to let the Palestinian Authority manage the Gaza Strip.

As for the United States, it wants the end of the war on Gaza to pave the way for a political negotiation process in accordance with the ‘two-state solution.’

The two-state smokescreen 

The ideal scenario for Washington involves the war transitioning to a new phase by the time primary elections roll around, with major military operations winding down. This would pave the way for a regional and international consensus on the two-state solution, leading to the handover of Gaza to the West Bank-based PA with security guarantees for Israel.

In this context, pressure on Hamas and other resistance factions to comply with ceasefire conditions would intensify with an emphasis on their perceived obstruction to the peace process.

Adjustments to the current Israeli government are therefore necessary to advance towards this goal. This involves the removal of the religious, right-wing extremists who vocally and openly oppose Palestinian statehood, and the inclusion of individuals endorsed by Washington for their outward commitment to this path.

Differentiation between the appearance of a “path to the two-state solution” and the “two-state solution” itself is crucial. The US aims for a return to negotiations rather than the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state.

The challenge lies in Netanyahu’s historic opposition to a two-state solution, making it unlikely for him to fully comply with US demands.

Netanyahu’s political career is marked by the rejection of the Oslo Accords and his incitement to kill Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the accords in 1993.

Moreover, Netanyahu affirmed a few months ago in a closed parliamentary session that he would do everything necessary to uproot the idea of a Palestinian state from reality.

It is therefore unlikely that the Israeli Prime Minister would agree to all these US demands. His political actions since the signing of the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2005 until today, show us that he is capable of continuing to rule, despite deep disagreements with the US administration.

At a pivotal moment in his career, it is not unlikely that Netanyahu will find an opportunity in this divergence of goals with the US to strengthen the Israeli right-wing on the basis of confronting the pressures aimed at establishing a Palestinian state “on the land of Israel.”

Naturally, populist, far-right Israeli political figures reject any talk of a two-state solution, or even a handover of the Gaza Strip to the PA.

The US, however, remains determined in its vision for the post-war phase, providing support to Israel militarily and diplomatically, as evidenced by the recent tank shell supplies and a UN Security Council veto against an immediate ceasefire.

Despite the apparent support from the Israeli public for the continuation of the war, the duration and outcome remain uncertain, with mounting costs on the economy and soldiers’ lives.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant anticipates that the war against Hamas “will take more than a few months” due to the challenges posed by the resistance’s infrastructure in Gaza – despite differing perspectives between the US and Israel on the duration and nature of the war.

Contrary to what the Americans declare, all indicators suggest that the war is prolonged, regardless of its form. It is not unlikely that Washington will be able to impose a change in the form of the war in the coming weeks.

Once again, what will change the reality and push Israel and the United States towards ending the war and attempting to defeat Hamas through blockade, starvation, and prevention of reconstruction are:

First, the resilience of the resistance and the losses that can be inflicted on the occupying army in the form of dozens of soldiers killed and thousands of wounded soldiers who are taken out of service. In this case, the occupying army may press its political leadership to retract from its high goals for the war. Even if the number of soldiers killed is relatively low, the number of soldiers leaving service due to injuries has an insurmountable limit.

And second, the continuation of operations by the Axis of Resistance forces in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq will also force the United States to reduce its war goals, push for a ceasefire, and lift the siege on Gaza. The last point, lifting the blockade, has been placed by Ansarallah in Yemen as a top demand to stop the operations against Israeli ships heading to Israeli ports from East Asia or vice versa.

In conclusion, the US wants the war to continue, but in its own way. As for what comes after – well, all that will be subject to Israeli-US political tensions, closely linked to the battle in Gaza and other regional fronts.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

More By the Auther

• Israel’s ground war conundrum
• Gaza ‘truce’ won’t halt the regional war
• After Nasrallah’s speech, US and Israel escalate Gaza war
• Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza: not if, but when
• Trouble ahead for the US and Israel in Gaza
• The war has started
• Hezbollah is at the gates of the Galilee, 17 years after the Second Lebanon War

Related

• EXCLUSIVE: Images show damage to US base in Iraq from drone attacks
• US-led Red Sea task force to face ‘extraordinary issues’: Iran
• BRICS and the Resistance Axis: a convergence of goals

Anticipating Israel’s Counter-Attack: Make the ‘One Democratic State’ Solution Mainstream Again

March 13, 2023

A pro-Palestinian protest calling for the end of Israeli apartheid and occupation (Photo: Raya Sharbain, via Wikimedia Commons)

By Mazin Qumsiyeh & Alain Alameddine

The settler-colonial apartheid state of Israel is facing unprecedented pressure on at least three fronts: The burden of its own internal contradictions which is taking it on the path to civil war, armed and unarmed Palestinian resistance inside Palestine which is laying bare Zionism’s claim to provide a “land without a people” as a “safe haven” for colonizers, and BDS and awareness efforts in the West, dubbed “Israel’s greatest threat” by the Institute for National Security Studies. 

The odds of these three pressure fronts increasing this year and in the coming years is real , and Israel is feeling the heat. How will it counter-attack? And how can a narrative that is solidly anchored in the One Democratic State solution protect our efforts and struggle?

Anticipating Israel’s Counter-Attack to BDS and Other Pro-Palestinian Efforts

When Herzl established the World Zionist Congress in 1897, he and all subsequent Zionist leaders realized that the main obstacle to achieving the goals of Zionism was what to do with local indigenous people of Palestine. The bride (Palestine) was indeed beautiful but she was married to another man (Palestinians), as said to be put succinctly by two visiting Zionists. 

This was and remains the main challenge to making Palestine the Jewish state of Israel. In the 1920s, Ben Gurion created a public relations campaign that sought to brilliantly talk about splitting the country, portraying colonialists as peace agents while continuing to take land and displacing Palestinian refugees. This hasbara strategy slowly evolved into the paradigms we see today: Western leaders speak of a two-state “solution” while Zionist leaders continue to advance their colonial project. This delusion over 100 years allowed Israel time to grow its military might, its political power, and to leave Palestinians with access to only 8% of historical Palestine. Yet, this era is coming to an end and a new reality needs to be reckoned with.

Through amazing resilience and despite horrendous efforts to drive them out, half of the Palestinians still live in historic Palestine. Thus, a system of deepening apartheid was needed and developed to control them and even use them as indentured labor to build the Jewish state. Movements seeking real liberation were targeted and principled leaders were assassinated while other (autocratic) leaders were domesticated. 

This latter phenomenon of mental colonization was a most troubling aspect of the evolution of the struggle. Out of ignorance or corruption, many Palestinians and other Arab leaders fed the delusion of a political settlement with Zionism even against the most compelling of data. Many Palestinian intellectuals wrote books warning that the trend only strengthens Zionism and colonialism. Indeed, the history of what happened since 1993 proved the warnings were right. Yet, those professing “pragmatism” continued because they had already been colonized mentally and reversal is rare. Many even deepened their ties to neo-liberal and neo-colonial structures. For example, the Palestinian capitalist class strengthened its relationships with its Israeli counterparts. 

The trends seen over the past few decades are unmistakable: deepening Israeli hegemony over the Palestinian economy (captive market), more land confiscation, increased human rights violations, destruction of the environment, growth of Israeli colonial settlements, growth of corruption within the (Israel/US approved) leadership of the Palestinian Authority, and increased fascism and racism within Israeli society. 

The tragedy is that this was foreseen by many of us and we warned that this is unsustainable. It is understandable that colonizers divide to conquer and that they fight democracy and human rights. Palestine will never be at peace or free without facing these realities and challenging hegemony. The increase in population and increase in access to social media makes it difficult for oppressors to control the narrative. It is becoming more and more difficult to sustain the delusions of so-called “liberal or left Zionists” or of “pragmatic Palestinians”.

Those who hijacked movements cannot also continue to tout the previous liberation struggle as their own. And on the Israeli side, the ascendance of lunatics like Ben Gvir and Smotrich within the apartheid regime should have been sufficient evidence of the failure of trying to accommodate political Zionism. 

The attempt of the ultra-right to reshape the judiciary branch of the Zionist regime is an interesting example of the identitarian rift within the colonial society. But regardless of the outcome of this particular issue, this is only a harbinger of deeper issues to surface: Even if the ultra-right is pressured to compromise here, it will only gain strength and proceed to further demands. The recent pogrom in Huwwara forewarns increased attempts at finally “finishing the job Ben Gurion started in 1948”.

The above serves as an indicator of Israel’s possible counter-attack: Domesticating pro-Palestinian efforts by making them compatible with Zionism, as happened with Oslo. 

This could take the form of mere “improvements” such as less oppression in the West Bank or less discrimination among Israeli citizens, whereupon it could be argued that Israel’s policies no longer meet the legal definition of occupation or apartheid. This is a moment of truth where we have a choice that is very simple: To identify Zionism’s politicization of identity and its endeavor to establish a state exclusive to Jews as the root cause of injustice and suffering in Palestine and the Middle East, and to put our boycotting and awareness-raising efforts in the context of a political vision that forms the fundamental antithesis to Zionism, that is, a vision that depoliticizes identity and proposes the transition to One Democratic State, from the river to the sea.

Publicly and explicitly rallying around the ODS solution as the objective prevents focusing on Israel’s actions and normalizing with its nature as a sectarian settler-colony, or turning the Palestinian liberation struggle into a mere moral or real estate issue that should be resolved by goodwill. It also prevents the infiltration of Palestinian or pro-Palestinian efforts by so-called “liberal” Zionists who criticize Israel’s practices but are keen on maintaining its existence as a state exclusive to Jews. Remaining focused on the central question of the “Jewish state” versus a “democratic state” further lays bare Zionism’s reality as a settler-colonial entity that can never be a democratizing or a liberating endeavor for Jews or any other. 

It ensures we do not get side-tracked by hasbara ‘whataboutist’ tactics and thus giving space for oppression. Activists, allies and potential allies can rally around this call for a transition to democracy and human rights and close our ranks around a political project for genuine liberation and decolonization.

The ODS Initiative: An ODS Tool

Launched by Palestinians and allies, the One Democratic State Initiative describes itself as “a political endeavor that identifies Zionism’s politicization of identity and establishment of a Jewish state as the root cause of suffering and violence in Palestine, and that, accordingly, proposes the transition to a secular, democratic, non-identitarian state in Palestine as the only possible solution. The purpose of the Initiative is thus to mobilize individuals, entities and political parties, in Palestine and abroad, behind such an endeavor.”

The ODS Initiative thus aims at reaching a stage where the main issue, “A democratic state or a Jewish state?”, takes the front stage in the political discourse regarding the occupation and liberation of Palestine. To accomplish this, it is reaching out to Palestinian and pro-Palestinian individuals and groups, as well as to all willing to listen, by means of online campaigns and on-the-ground meetings.

Practical examples include the reporting of the Huwwara rampage and the Aqaba meeting, the commemoration of Baruch Goldstein’s massacre, the displaying of Palestinian art, or sharing of existing material such as Visual Palestine’s infographics, articles by Awad Abdelfattah or videos displaying Zionist racism, all in the context of an ODS solution.

The results so far have been a reach of close to 1.5 million persons, most of whom are in Palestine, over 100,000 of whom have interacted with us and thousands have signed up and shared their contact details as supporters of the One Democratic State solution.

The ODS Initiative has also particularly placed emphasis on reaching out to the several existing ODS movements in a bid to create a collaborative platform that would allow all to work together on specific campaigns and activities. 

This includes, for example, putting ODSI sign-ups in contact with local ODS activists or groups, organizing joint events that put well-known ODS supporters in contact with interested ones, co-authoring articles such as this one, or collaboration for the purpose of making use of existing material, such as colonial activities documented by ARIJ.org, and environmental justice issues documented by studies by palestinenature.org, and presenting them in laymen’s terms in Arabic, English and Hebrew.

Would You Take Part?

The first step in any revolutionary endeavor is to build a solid narrative based on facts that challenges existing widespread hasbara/propaganda, that energizes existing activists and activates support for action including boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. Envisioning and working for a better future is certainly along the line of “lighting a candle is better than cursing the darkness.” 

We urge Palestinian and pro-Palestinian political movements, media, activists, solidarity groups and celebrities to push forward the One Democratic State solution in their discourse regarding Palestine, its occupation and its liberation. We further invite all those willing to sign up as supporters of the ODS solution and/or to contact us to help build a decentralized yet organized network. The settler-colonial apartheid state will be dismantled, One Democratic State will be established in its stead, and Palestine will be free.

– Mazin Qumsiyeh is a Palestinian scientist and author, founder and director of the Palestine Museum of Natural History and the Palestine Institute for Biodiversity and Sustainability at Bethlehem University.

– Alain Alameddine is a member of Lebanese political party Citizens in a State and an activist in the One Democratic State Initiative. They contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle. 

The return of the two-state solution illusion

 SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 

JOE BIDEN AND ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER YAIR LAPID SIGN THE JERUSALEM US-ISRAEL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP JOINT DECLARATION, JULY 14, 2022 (PHOTO: KOBI GIDEON, GPO)

By Mitchell Plitnick

Source

For Democrats in the United States and the political “centrists” in Israel—represented by Joe Biden and Yair Lapid, respectively—the loss of credibility for the two-state solution has meant losing more and more support for Israeli policies. As the respected polling site 538.com noted recently, among many other sources, younger Democrats are increasingly supportive of Palestinians and less so of Israeli policies. 

These facts explain the theater we have witnessed in recent days at the United Nations General Assembly and in the American media scene, where the lone Palestinian woman ever elected to Congress has come under unrelenting attack from her own party as well as the opposition. 

At the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly, Biden devoted one brief mention to the question of Palestine, but what he did say was telling. “And we will continue to advocate for lasting negotiating peace between the Jewish and democratic state of Israel and the Palestinian people,” Biden told the Assembly. “The United States is committed to Israel’s security, full stop.  And a negotiated two-state solution remains, in our view, the best way to ensure Israel’s security and prosperity for the future and give the Palestinians the state which — to which they are entitled — both sides to fully respect the equal rights of their citizens; both people enjoying equal measure of freedom and dignity.”

While stumbling over his words, and certainly unintentionally, Biden said the quiet part out loud. The U.S. will advocate for lasting negotiations, the hallmark of the Oslo process; endless negotiations that lead nowhere while Israeli settlements spread farther across the West Bank, Gaza slowly dies of poverty, and the status quo in East Jerusalem gradually fades into Jewish dominance. And above all, Israeli “security” is guarded “full stop,” and if there is any room left for any Palestinian rights, those will be considered according to Israel’s wishes. 

Acting Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid spoke at more length about a two-state solution, but said little more. Spending most of his time urging the world to abandon diplomacy with Iran and instead launch a war, presumably to change the regime there, Lapid stated that “An agreement with the Palestinians, based on two states for two peoples, is the right thing for Israel’s security, for Israel’s economy and for the future of our children.”

Lapid’s speech was littered with falsehoods. He went on at length about how Israel is victimized by “fake news,” citing an incident in May 2021 where a photo of a toddler who was said to have been killed in an Israeli strike on Gaza circulated on social media. The post was a fake and was quickly debunked. But Lapid failed to mention that, while the toddler, referred to as Malak Al Tanani, was, indeed, made up, there was an entire family of Tananis–Ra’fat Tanani, 38, his pregnant wife Rawiye, 35, and their children Ismail, 6, Ameer, 5, Adham, 4, and Mohammad, 3—who were killed in an Israeli strike on May 13, 2021. A fact-check by the Agence France-Presse confirmed both the fake photo and the real family. B’Tselem also posted a video in May 2022 interviewing a relative of the Tanani family that was killed. 

Having established, through misleading statements and outright dissembling, Israel as a “victim,” Lapid then made sure to let the assembly know that, while he was coming out in support of more talks, and the idea of a two-state solution, Israel would do nothing to make that solution, or any other, a real possibility. 

“The burden of proof is not on us. We have already proved our desire for peace. Our peace treaty with Egypt has been fully implemented for 43 years now. Our peace treaty with Jordan for 28 years. We are a country that keeps its word and fulfills agreements,” Lapid said

Aside from the fact that Lapid omits the crucial point that these peace agreements have been enforced by billions of dollars of U.S. aid to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, Lapid elides the many times Israel has refused to agree to various conditions or interim deals, or has made demands on Palestinians it knew they could not accept. 

The absence of a single word about what Israel or the United States would do to achieve freedom for Palestinians or to advance any solution, two state or otherwise, to the ongoing conditions of apartheid and dispossession is unsurprising if one considers that the goal was not to appease the Palestinians, but to address domestic constituencies. 

Lapid surely knows he was lying when he said that “Despite all the obstacles, still today a large majority of Israelis support the vision of this two-state solution.” In fact, a recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that only 31% of Israeli Jews and only 60% of Palestinian and other Arab citizens of Israel support the two-state solution. 

But his own constituency in the Yesh Atid party supports such negotiations. More importantly, he wants to make sure he has the loyalty of the small Labor and Meretz parties, both of which support the two-state solution, against his center-right rival, Benny Gantz. Right now, all the polls show that neither Lapid nor Gantz will come close to being able to assemble the coalition of 61 seats needed to win the upcoming election, while their far-right competitor, Benjamin Netanyahu, has better, although also far from certain, prospects of reaching that mark. 

Lapid also hopes to bolster his chances by demonstrating his compatibility with Biden and the Democrats, and they are more than willing to oblige. Targeting Rep. Rashida Tlaib plays a key role in both bolstering Lapid as a bulwark against Netanyahu—whom Democrats would not want to see back in office, given his very close ties to the Republican Party—and in trying to smother the growing support for Palestine within the party. 

According to a poll conducted by Pew Research back in March, 61% of Americans between 18 and 29 years of age have a favorable opinion of Palestinians. Among those aged 30-49 it is 55%, and even among older voters, 45-47% have a favorable opinion of Palestinians. While many of these people also hold positive views of Israel, American sympathy for Palestinians has grown immensely over the past two decades, when only 16% of voters viewed Palestinians positively. 

This sits poorly with mainstream Democrats and their corporate, and especially, pro-Israel funders. So, when Tlaib made a self-evident and fact-based statement, Democrats joined Republicans in piling on her and branding her an antisemite. 

Tlaib, of course, stated that you cannot be progressive and support Israel’s apartheid government. The response was as vicious as it was disingenuous, with the usual anti-Palestinian hatemongers like Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL, AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, and a long list of Democratic members of Congress stumbling over each other to see who could come up with the most scurrilous and spurious accusations against Tlaib, who did no more than point out what so many international, Palestinian, and even Israeli human rights groups have proven.

It’s no coincidence that these attacks came at the same time as the UNGA speeches. Tlaib was very careful to point her finger only at the Israeli government and its policies; at no time did she ever hint at the question of Israel’s existence nor of the presence of Jews in the land. Indeed, even the avowedly Zionist group Americans for Peace Now rose to Tlaib’s defense, splitting with J Street, which shamefully supported the attacks on Tlaib.

The two-state solution and the myth that you can support apartheid and still be true to progressive values go hand in hand. Consider the words Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz used in her hateful rant against Tlaib. “The outrageous progressive litmus test on Israel by Rashida Tlaib is nothing short of antisemitic. Proud progressives do support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler elaborated further. “I fundamentally reject the notion that one cannot support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and be a progressive. I proudly embrace both of these political positions and identities, even as I have criticized some of the policies and actions of democratically-elected Israeli governments over time. I would happily put my progressive record and credentials up against anyone’s. It is both wrong and self-defeating for progressive leaders to abide such an offensive litmus tests.”

The legitimacy of many of the Congressmembers claiming the “progressive” label is clearly questionable, but Wasserman-Schultz, joined by other Democrats, calling Tlaib antisemitic for expressing support for a view that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, al-Haq, and B’Tselem have all expressed and backed up with extensive research is cynically perverse, whether you think Tlaib is right or wrong. 

Both she and Nadler call Tlaib’s statement a “litmus test,” as if the question is not whether Israel practices apartheid, but whether supporting it anyway is acceptable within the bounds of anything that can be labeled “progressive politics.” 

Nadler also talks about his occasional criticism of “Israeli policies,” as did many of the Democrats who ganged up on Tlaib. How must those words look to a Palestinian in Gaza or Masafer Yatta, or to a Palestinian-American who might be a constituent of one of these Democrats who express such passionate solidarity with Israelis and such stony indifference, if not outright hostility, to Palestinians? 

For years, the idea of a two-state solution in Palestine and Israel has been exposed as a pipe dream. However viable it may once have been, more and more people have come to realize in recent years that it simply isn’t a realistic option anymore. 

Some years ago, a well-informed colleague observed to me that the two-state solution is never impossible, but the costs—fiscally, politically, diplomatically—just keep getting higher. He was right, of course. It is never physically impossible to dismantle Israel’s settlements, sever the existing infrastructure in the West Bank from Israel, work out realistic borders, open Gaza, and pour the many billions of dollars into Palestine that would be required after seven decades and counting of occupation to build a truly viable state. 

It’s all possible, but the cost would be enormous, and the price—allowing the option of refugees returning to their homes, allowing Palestine the means to defend itself like any other country, compensating Palestinians for their dispossession and suffering, all on top of reining in the most radical of the nationalist settlers, resettling the hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank, shifting borders to accommodate a connection between Gaza and West Bank, sharing water resources equitably, and a hundred other details—is far higher than anything Israel would consider in its wildest dreams. 

But that doesn’t mean the two-state solution isn’t seen as crucial for Israel and the United States. Its implementation may be undesirable for Israel, but the idea of it serves a crucial purpose: it is the very lifeblood of the myth that one can support a “Jewish and democratic” apartheid state and reconcile that with liberal or progressive values. That allows them to characterize their “disagreements” with Israel as being about specific policies, not an apartheid system at the very heart of Israel’s character. 

Apartheid is not a policy; it is an institution. It is a political and legal system. It is a crime under international law. It is not merely one decision to demolish a home, to detain a Palestinian without charge, to beat an elderly man at the al-Aqsa Compound, or to launch one missile at a Gaza apartment building. 

That system is not just incompatible with progressive values, it’s incompatible even with classical Liberalism. To maintain the self-deception many Democratic supporters of Israel, in and out of politics, need for their consciences, they need to believe that there is a genuine striving for a Palestinian state that can deliver rights to those living under Israeli rule right now. 

But it’s an illusion. Israel has been disrupting the possibility of it from the beginnings of Oslo through today, with massive settlement expansion, the isolation and starvation of Gaza, and the gradual erosion of the long-standing agreements on the holy sites in Jerusalem. 

Joe Biden and congressional Democrats are desperately trying to save this phony duality, this illusion that you can support an Israeli ethno-state that, by definition, cannot be a state of all its citizens and must, by its nature discriminate against Palestinians and still call yourself a progressive without irony. 

No one would suggest you can be progressive but be against a woman’s right to decide about what to do with her own body. Nor can you be progressive and oppose LGBTQIA* rights. Nor can you support racial discrimination, or autocracy. 

Similarly, no matter how loudly you insist otherwise, you cannot be progressive and be in support of an apartheid regime. The illusion of a two-state solution that hasn’t been a viable possibility for many years doesn’t change that. It only reinforces one discriminatory illusion with another.