by Rory McCarthy
A group of prominent Palestinian figures has proposed a radical change in
strategy to demand a single, bi-national state if the current round of
Middle East peace talks fails.
The Palestinian Strategy Study Group, an EU-funded project written by 27
leading Palestinian figures from across the political spectrum, argued that
the current two-state framework for peace talks is failing to bring the
promised independent state. Instead, it suggested ending the negotiation
process that has gone on now for nearly 20 years, reconstituting the
Palestinian Authority into what might become a "Palestinian Resistance
Authority", and developing a form of "smart" resistance.
"The central aim will be to maximise the cost of continuing occupation for
Israel, and to make the whole prospect of unilateral separation unworkable,"
it said. The final, and most striking proposal, is to shift to a "single
state outcome" as the Palestinians' preferred goal. This, it said, would
regain the strategic initiative for the Palestinians.
"Although many Palestinians may still prefer a genuine negotiated two-state
solution, a failure of the present Annapolis initiative will greatly
strengthen those who argue against this," the report said. "Most
Palestinians are then likely to be convinced that a negotiated agreement is
no longer possible."
It is not the first time a bi-national state has been proposed as a
Palestinian goal, but the new report signals a marked shift in Palestinian
thinking at a time when the latest peace talks between Israel and the
Palestinians are yet again struggling to make any headway. Questions are now
being asked on both sides about the future of the two-state solution that
for so long has been the framework of Middle East peacemaking.
The greatest disquiet is on the Palestinian side, where even moderates are
now beginning to sense the two-state formula is moving out of reach. . . .
FULL TEXT
---
A.K. Ramakrishnan, "Mahatma
Gandhi Rejected Zionism," The Wisdom Fund, August 15, 2001
Jimmy Carter, "Don't Punish the
Palestinians," Washington Post, February 20, 2006
James Brooks, "America's
Guilty Silence," Dissident Voice, June 18, 2007
Mark Tran, "Hamas Ready to Accept Gaza Truce,"
Guardian, April 22, 2008
[For some, such as the intellectuals and activists who make up the
Palestinian Strategy Group (which recently made this case in Arabic
newspapers), talk of a one-state scenario is meant to warn Israel of the
dangers posed by its expansionist policies. This group would still prefer a
two-state solution to emerge. Others, however, are returning to the
one-state vision first espoused by Fatah (the mainstream Palestinian
nationalist movement) back in the late '60s. The first group believes that
one-state talk might help knock some sense into the heads of Israeli
decision-makers. The second prefers a one-state solution because it would
create a government they would eventually control as a demographic
majority.--Sari Nusseibeh, "The One-State Solution,"
Newsweek, September 29, 2008]
["We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which
is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not
all the territories," Olmert said. . . .
he believed that Israel would have to give up the Golan Heights in return
for Syria breaking its relationship with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.--Rory
McCarthy, "Olmert: Israel must hand back land for peace with Palestinians
and Syria," Guardian, September 29, 2008]
[In April 1975, Israel expropriated 11 square miles east of Jerusalem "for
public use." In 1977, another square mile was taken. . . .
Most of the built-up area of Maale Adumim lies inside the land that was confiscated.
This is a prima facie violation of international law. Under the 1907 Hague
Convention, an occupying power may expropriate land only for the public use
of the occupied population. Taking private West Bank land for Israeli use is
therefore barred.--Gershom Gorenberg, "Failure Written in West Bank Stone,"
Washington Post, September 29, 2008]
[Shlomo Sand . . . argues that the Jews were never exiled from the Holy
Land, that most of today's Jews have no historical connection to the land
called Israel and that the only political solution to the country's conflict
with the Palestinians is to abolish the Jewish state..--Jonathan Cook, "Israel's
surprising best seller contradicts founding ideology,"
electronicintifada.net, October 8, 2008]
"Most Palestinians Reject
Two-State Solution," Angus Reid Global Monitor, October 10, 2008
[Saudi Arabia first proposed the peace initiative in 2002, offering pan-Arab
recognition of Israel in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands
captured in 1967 - the West Bank, Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem and the Golan
Heights.--Aron Heller, "Israel reopens Saudi peace plan,"
Independent, October 20, 2008]
[Resolution 242 . . . passed in November 1967, after Israel had occupied
Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and Golan, and it emphasises
"the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and calls for
"withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict".
Readers who know the problem here will be joined by those who will
immediately pick it up. The Israelis say that they are not required to
withdraw from all the territories Ð because the word "all" is missing and
since the definite article "the" is missing before the word "territories",
its up to Israel to decide which bits of the occupied territories it gives
up and which bits it keeps.--Robert Fisk, "One
missing word sowed the seeds of catastrophe," Independent, December
20, 2008]
Tariq Ali, "From the ashes of Gaza: In the face of Israel's
latest onslaught, the only option for Palestinian nationalism is to embrace
a one-state solution," Guardian, December 30, 2008
