|
Benny Elon
A lie that we repeat many times, as it is known, becomes true –apparently. It would seem that a clearly failing conception succeeds in continuing to be considered as relevant when time after time, it receives support through festive and senior-level conferences starring American presidents. Therefore, we must state clearly, what it appears that everyone understands already. The concept of "an independent, national, Palestinian state" – which is portrayed as a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict – is directly responsible for the majority of Israeli and Palestinian blood shed here in the past fifteen years. It is safe to assume that if this conception had not been fostered, and were it not for the endless summits and conferences and the imaginary amounts of dollars and euros, we would have been enjoying peace and real security in the Middle East for some time.
The concept of an independent Palestinian state - or according to the wording of its marketing campaign 'two states', is afflicted with a deep and built-in failure. It takes the Arab-Palestinian identity, that is, the identity whose definition is weaned from the same territory upon which the State of Israel sits, and asks to grant her a national state. When two peoples' identity is weaned from the same strip of land, it is the perfect recipe for perpetuating the conflict. On the day that the Palestinian Authority becomes a state, will Jaffa and the Galilee cease to be part of the Palestinian homeland? Clearly not. The opposite is true. The moment that the Palestinian Authority establishes its control over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, all of the fledgling Palestinian nationalism's energy will be focused on escaping the strangulation of their narrow borders, to the remaining parts of Palestine. The territory designated for this Palestinian state is so limited and thin, that pushing out of its borders is only a question of time. Surely, when on the other side of the fence, await not only a modern and developed economy, access to the sea and connection to Gaza, but also many Palestininian brothers, holders of blue identity cards.
The response of the 'peace activists' who adhere to the conception of two states is even more hallucinatory: they believe that on the day that we give the Palestinians Judea and Samaria, their whole national outlook will change. From then on, they will see the Jewish state as a legitimate partner for the ownership of Palestine, and will honour the agreed partition lines. It is unnecessary to say that these are foolish words. It is no coincidence that the Palestinians succeeded in again evading recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. The creation of a Palestinian state, even one that will be "Judeinrein", will never cause the evaporation of the Palestinian aspiration to turn Israel into a bi-national state, and to eventually unify it under a united Palestinian regime.
And in spite of this, the leaders of Israel continue to adhere, time after time, to the same outlook which bore Oslo and Camp David, the Al-Aksa Intifada and thousands of terror victims, the loss of the Israeli deterrent and the loss of the Palestinian hope. How many refugees have been rehabilitated since the Oslo process? How many Arabs have received citizenship and opportunities? How many Israeli soldiers have been released into civilian life thanks to the "peace age" which began in 1993?
Israel can live in peace in the Middle East. The refugees of 1948 can live rehabilitated lives. Whoever lives in the land of Israel can have full rights, human and civil. All that this requires is a reinvigorated way of thinking and extrication from the conception of two states. We didn't take the Palestinian state, because there was never such a state (Jordan is the closest thing to a Palestinian state, which was established for the Arabs of the land even before the Jewish state was established). The Jews need a state of their own, they don't have any other; the Arabs living in the land of Israel, need honor, livelihood, a home and civil rights. These can be given to them in a variety of ways, including the full rehabilitation of all the refugees and strengthening of the stable countries in the region -as I propose in "the Israeli Initiative".
The claim that there is no alternative to the two-state solution, indicates nothing other than an archaic way of thinking and an obsessive adherence to the number one cause of disaster in recent years. It is possible to formulate it thus: the claim that there is no alternative is as true as the claim that there is any chance whatsoever of bringing peace by the two-state formula.
|