Hope for two-state solution fading

In the pessimistic political environment that has prevailed since the war on Gaza, followed by the success achieved by the Israeli extreme right in the legislative elections, a faint light of hope transpired from the statements made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her visit to occupied Jerusalem and Ramallah, to the effect that the new American Administration will exert its efforts in favour of establishing a Palestinian State, living side by side with Israel.

Clinton emphasised that the US will actively push for a two-state solution. Indeed, both the Arab-Muslim and Western worlds are in favour of the solution that was called for by George W. Bush early in his presidency, and President Barack Obama is still calling for that solution today.

The situation in Israel, however, appears different. Indications that the Israeli government will refuse this solution are omnipresent there.

The Israeli media, following Clinton's statements, started talking about alternative solutions. "Not only is it far from being the single solution," said Major General (retired) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, "it's a bad solution, and will never likely be achieved."

In addition to posing a serious threat to Israel, Eiland believes such a solution, and the evacuation of certain colonies "would be extremely difficult, [and] likely to generate resistance that is beyond anything experienced to date."

Zalman Shoval, Israel's former ambassador to Washington, currently in charge of external relations at the Likud Party, said that "the expression [two states for two peoples] may need to be explained in different ways. Whether it is eventually called a 'Palestinian State' or a 'Limited Sovereignty State' is a matter that needs negotiations".

Yakov Katz, leader of the Israeli extremist right-wing National Union Party, and a minister in the new government, commented that: "With the help of the Lord, in a few years to come, there will be one state, the State of Israel."

Presumably, this would involve the annexation of the Palestinian occupied West Bank. Little wonder then, that the new ultra-nationalist (indeed, fascist) Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's highly publicised statements have caused shock in diplomatic circles all over the world, notably in the US and Europe.

Since the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli leaders have proposed the establishment of a 'frail' Palestinian entity, referring to it mockingly as 'an autonomous state', 'a fully sovereign and independent state' or even 'an empire'. Shlomo Gazette, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, described the 'proposed' Palestinian state as "one similar to that of Lahad".

The increased number and expansion of colonies has devoured great areas of the West Bank, and the apartheid-like West Bank barrier has hindered Palestinians' mobility and paralysed their economy, gradually eroding hope for a viable Palestinian state.

Things will become even worse as a result of the new Israeli government formed by the extremist right-wing parties and headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. The latter declared his support for the creation of a 'non-sovereign' Palestinian State on 50 per cent of the West Bank. He considers what the Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni has advocated - 'two states for two peoples' - as a threat to Israel.

Netanyahu adds other "tactical reasons" for his objections, first and foremost of which is that the question of a Palestinian state must be a point for discussion in negotiations, not a concession given by Israel in advance.

Despite the differences in points of view between Israeli leaders, they are all more or less agreed on the necessity for the continued occupation of Palestinian land, the building of Jewish/Zionist colonies and the enforcing of 'Judaisation', especially in Occupied Jerusalem. Until now, none of the Israeli leaders have shown willingness to abandon Occupied Jerusalem, which they consider their eternal capital.

For Arabs, Muslims and especially Palestinians, it is the substance, not the nomenclature of the forthcoming Palestinian state that matters. In other words, it should be an independent, sovereign, geographically connected state, able to manage its interests and those of its people. If we talk favourably about the 'two-state' solution, it is because an increasing number of people on both sides are content with it. It is a solution that is being continuously circumvented by the Israelis.

Doing away with this solution will leave three options: transfer, apartheid and one Jewish state. We know that Israel is taking advantage of the present conditions and has practically adopted these three options simultaneously.

Israel has worked on obliterating the so-called Green Line (1967 armistice line) by building heavily on both of its sides. They have re-drawn the path of the West Bank barrier to include the large colonies in the occupied Jerusalem area and they have built full-fledged Jewish living quarters in East Jerusalem and surroundings.

The two-state option should not mean that Palestinians are forced to adapt to the colonising activity. The facts on the ground, which have been created with concrete, and the chopping the West Bank into small cantons reveal the Israeli purpose of dictating forced boundaries on the Palestinians.

The West seems to be convinced now that Israel is moving to turn the two-state solution into a mirage, as the land that could be used to establish a Palestinian state is being gobbled up. At the same time, Israel insists that any concession on its part should be linked with its elastic 'security' concept. In light of all of these facts and the Palestinian rift, is it an exaggeration to say that the two-state solution is exhaling its last breath?

Dr As'ad Abdul Rahman is the Chairman of the Palestinian Encyclopedia.