On December 23rd 2016, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution demanding that Israel halts construction of settlements in occupied territories. The resolution passed because the U.S. abstained from voting, reportedly on instruction of Barack Obama (one of his very few wise decisions on foreign policy). Mr. Obama’s successor in the White House, Donald Trump, allegedly had urged the Obama administration to use its veto but apparently his tweet didn’t reach Washington on time.
This Land is My Land…
Israel’s government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, reacted defiantly, announcing the construction of more houses in the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem in January of this year. Israel’s parliament passed a law retroactively which legalizes outposts on private Palestinian land in the West Bank (although Israel’s Supreme Court could still invalidate this questionable law). Israel’s ruling parties believe that their actions will be backed by the Trump administration, which already proposed – in another tweet – to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem (a sensitive issue as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as their capital) and appointed a pro-Israel ambassador that has said that Israel should annex the West Bank. However, Mr. Trump also said that building more settlements may not help achieve peace. This, obviously, is not an alternative fact: the Israeli settlements policy is one of the most important impediments to reach a two-state solution.
It is difficult to see how a two-state solution still can be achieved given that it is unlikely that the settlers will leave their homes voluntarily and quietly (there are about 400,000 settlers on the West Bank and around 200,000 living in East Jerusalem). Apart from settlements, the West Bank has security walls, fences and control points that make normal life for Palestinians near-impossible. In any case, they do not enjoy basic civil rights and are treated as second-class citizens. In 2014, John Kerry – in one of his characteristic gaffes for which he later apologized – correctly described the situation as “Apartheid”. Further, an understandable obstacle from the Israeli point of view, is that Palestinian parties refuse to recognize Israel and that there are continuing violent attacks on Jewish people (especially by Hamas combatants from Gaza). Finally, the Palestinians themselves are divided (Hamas versus Fatah) over what to agree to.
After 70 years of fighting and fruitless talks, it is time to acknowledge that a two-state solution most likely never will be implemented, whereas in the meantime settlers are encroaching on private Palestinian land. However, it is not obvious what could take its place, although many experts now believe it is better to start discussions from a one-state perspective. A solution under an one-state perspective would be based on civil rights instead of territorial rights. Instead of being treated as second-class citizens, Palestinians should get rights equal to those of Israelis and receive substantial monetary compensation. This obviously implies that Israel can not be a Jewish State as non-Jews will have equal rights. Why would Israelis agree to that? Because otherwise the two groups continue to live in permanent and rising conflict at increasing costs. South Africa managed to abolish Apartheid, so why can’t Israel/Palestine?
