 |
| My Enemy’s Enemy Is My Friend: Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the opening of the Islamic Central Institute in Berlin, December 19, 1942. The elimination of the Jewish state has been the unwavering ambition of successive generations of Palestinian leaders. |
AMIDST ALL THE HORROR of the Israel-Hamas War, the world’s hopes for peace remain pinned on the so-called “Two-State Solution”. Born of the 1993 Oslo Accords, where Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) jointly agreed to establish the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) the Two State Solution looked forward to the creation of an independent Palestinian state adjoining the State of Israel.
Naturally, there were sceptics.
Historians quite rightly pointed out that the option of two states, Israel and Palestine, both of them carved out of the League of Nation’s “Mandate” which the British had just relinquished, had been on the table as long ago as 1947.
It had been laid there by the newly-created United Nations, whose commissioners had drawn the borders of the proposed states as closely as possible around majority Arab and Jewish communities. The result, as with similar exercises undertaken in Ireland and India, left both sides angry and frustrated. After much soul-searching, however, the Jews of Palestine accepted the proposed partition. The Palestinian Arabs, determined to inherit an undivided Palestinian state, refused.
How different the world might have been had the Palestinian leaders followed the example of their Jewish counterparts. Gaza, today, might have been a sparkling Mediterranean city, as buzzing with entrepreneurship and innovation as Tel Aviv, just a few miles up the coast. In a single generation, the West Bank of the Jordan, bankrolled by the Arab oil states, would surely have been replicating Israel’s own economic miracle.
Palestine’s leaders, however, have always presented a problem.
In 1947, the most prominent Palestinian statesman was Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Scion of an aristocratic Arab family which traced its lineage all the way back to the Prophet, al-Husseini was implacably opposed to the Zionist project of recreating a Jewish homeland in what had been the Ottoman province of Palestine. So adamant was he in his opposition that, when the Second World War broke out, he’d allied himself with Adolf Hitler and his Nazis.
Al-Husseini presided over the Egyptian protectorate called the All Palestine Government, based in Gaza, from 1948 until 1953. While he and all those who shared his hatred of the Israeli state (recognised by the UN in 1948) remained in charge, there was no possibility of the original Two State Solution being revived.
It was only the extraordinary efforts of Norway’s peace negotiators outside Oslo that put the Two State Solution back on the table, and President Bill Clinton who “persuaded” al-Husseini’s distant cousin, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, to sign the accords. But, not even that silver-tongued son of Hope, Arkansas, could seduce Arafat into making the Two State Solution a reality.
It has come no nearer under Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor at the PNA. Even if he were willing, however, it is doubtful whether the Israelis would be all that keen on placing their nation’s hopes for peace in the hands of a man who, in 1984, published a book entitled “The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism”, in which Abbas accuses the Zionist movement and its leaders of being “fundamental partners” in the genocide of European Jewry alongside, and sharing equal responsibility with, the Nazis.
They came close, though. With the establishment of the PNA, the Israeli Government quietly removed its public objections to Abbas’s utterly false and outrageous lies. In pursuit of a Two State Solution, Abbas’s accusation that “every racist in the world was given the green light, and first and foremost Hitler and the Nazis, to do with the Jews as they wish, as long as it ensures Jewish immigration to Palestine”, along with many others, were quietly retired.
Which is more than can be said for Abbas. Eighty-eight years old and infamously corrupt, Abbas refuses to retire. Now President of the “State of Palestine”, he continues to survey the pitiful wreckage of his people’s homes and hopes.
While the Americans persist in claiming that two states are the only solution to the bitter and intractable problems that have plagued the region since 1948, at least some of Israel’s diplomats must smile encouragingly whenever the idea is mentioned. That said, very few ordinary Israelis still believe in it.
Entirely understandable, because, honestly, after the horror of 7 October 2023, what sane Israeli would risk one state for two?
This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 25 October 2024.
This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 25 October 2024.
13 comments:
"The Palestinian Arabs, determined to inherit an undivided Palestinian state, refused". I wonder if that was the case Chris. Or was it even then, the shady influence of Iran and Lebanon etc, that influenced that decision. I would see latter to be more likely. The ordinary Palestinian Arabs may have been happy for a State of their own. I don't know but guess Iran would never stand for it as it would then Legitimise Israel as having a right to their own State. The silent antagonist has a lot to answer for in my mind.
Yes, I wonder why so many governments, ours included, still cling to the idea of a two state solution in Israel/Palestine.
Israel is tiny, it can fit into Te Waipounamu six times with land left over. There can either be an Israel, or then can be a Palestine: there cannot be both.
I have seen the U.N. plan to partition the British Mandate of Palestine, and it looks like a collection of American Indian reservations.
I understand that King Abdullah of Jordan had a secret meeting with Golda Meir before hostilities started. He believed that Palestine was too small to survive as an independent state and welcomed the Palestinian Arabs to Jordan.
The Palestinians should have moved when they had the opportunity.
Do not get me wrong, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Israel exists because of the Holocaust. The Palestinians have paid a terrible price for the crimes of the Germans. I can understand why the Arab nations are less than thrilled with having Europe's "Jewish problem" being dumped on them.
But the train of Palestinian nationalism left the station in 1948, and it is not coming back, ever.
"[Lehi] Its founder, Abraham Stern, advocated indiscriminate terrorist tactics that helped distinguish this small breakaway group of a few hundred members. Sometimes referred to as the "Stern Gang", this organization tarred the British Empire as the main enemy of Zionism and unleased a violent campaign that targeted British policemen, administrators, and and imperial institutions. Ideologically, Lehi espoused a peculiar mix of anti-imperialism and fascism. It went so far as to offer support for a Nazi conquest of Palestine if, in return, Germany would back massive resettlement of Jews in he mandate." pg. 327 Carolyn Elkins, 'Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire', [2022]
It is of course ludicrous to judge the Zionist movement by the individual historical views of Lehi, the Stern Gang. Indeed, it is a movement of its time, based on the information available at the time. We later became fully aware of many things which we hope would have led to different beliefs.
Similarly, Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
The 'Two State Solution' has been a dead duck for decades. Israel won't have a bar of it. Every time the Palestinians have even LOOKED like holding their noses, screwing up their eyes, and signing off on a deal, however noisome, Israel has reliably upped the ante with a further demand. Israel has even bragged about offering deals that Israel would never in this world, or any other, would accept. The wonder of it is that even an intelligent and humane man such as Professor Jeffery Sachs still thinks a Two State solution is the way to go. So does President Vladimir Putin, apparently. It simply won't happen. It can not happen. Too much polluted water has flowed under that bridge.
Of course, who gets the blame for their 'intransigence'? Not Israel, oh dear me no: Israel can do no wrong. Israel is always right. It's these pesky, perfidious Palestinians. Has to be.
It seems that now Israel gets a free pass on genocide - using, mark you - the Holocaust as their excuse . For Benjamin Netanyahu, it's his 'stay out of jail free' card.
To listen to the main stream media, a credulous mind might suppose that history began on 7 October 2023. Apart from the long since debunked lies Netanyahu saw fit recently to peddle before the US Congress, the history of Israel's genocide began at least in 1948; and there are some who would argue that the history goes back beyond the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and even into the 19th Century.
Before the British finally relinquished its mandate in 1948, they tried to warn the local Arab population what the Jewish leadership had in store for them. It seems the Arabs simply refused to believe that the Jews could be so treacherous as to begin what has since amounted to a 76-year pogrom against Arabs.
If one were inclined to a theological argument with Netanyahu and his pals - you know the Mast--- sorry, 'Chosen People', gag, and the Promised Land thing, even an areligious cove like me knows that is a crock even in Biblical terms. That 'promise' the God of Solomon revoked quite explicitly, on account of Solomon's idolatry. To be sure, that idol worship was politically motivated, but that is neither here nor there. The promise to Moses expired during the reign of Rehoboam; ten of the Tribes seceded to become Israel (the two remaining were known as Judea); and then Judea, and followed by Israel, fell under the suzerainty of Egypt. The woes of Israel were not to end there. Seems Mr Netanyahu has conveniently forgotten that bit. Quite a lot to forget.
And you should hear the utterings of Israel's governing Party, and witness the evils carried out in Israel's name not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank and in Lebanon. This, Israel is pleased to call 'self defence'. No. Israel does not get this plea. Resistance to an occupying power is legitimate under International Law. Hamas is a resistance movement - quite consistent with the appellation 'terrorist organisation': of course it is. What do people expect? So were the Maquis of France, the Partisans of Yugoslavia, and the Mujahidin of Afghanistan. As a resistance against an occupying power, Hamas is acting, arguably, within its lawful rights. I find it impossible to see anything lawful in the horrors Israel has been visiting upon people whose very existence Israel sees fit to deny.
Cheers,
Ion A. Dowman
"what sane Israeli would risk one state for two?"
The Hamas/Islamist position is far from sane but it is clear, in word and deed: there is only one "solution" - the annihilation of Israel and her Jewish people. Unfortunately for the rest of us Israel and the Jews are merely the first step in this supremacist mission; Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and, the lowest of the low as far as they see it, Atheists, are next.
https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-leaders-our-goal-establishment-global-islamic-caliphate-not-just-liberation-palestine
" After much soul-searching, however, the Jews of Palestine accepted the proposed partition. The Palestinian Arabs, determined to inherit an undivided Palestinian state, refused."
If someone plonked a group of people in your backyard who occupied your house, would you accept it Chris? Of course the Israelis accepted – it they managed to push Palestinians out of the recognised partition borders and occupied most of the country. Of course they wouldn't be willing to return to the borders established in 1947, because they've stolen the lot pretty much. And it's still going on as settlers murder and drive Palestinians out of their villages.
The two state solution is dead, not because Israelis as a group don't want it, but because Netanyahu and his government have pushed their land grab beyond all reason and there is no way now for a Palestinian state. So Israel is going to have to live with low level IRA style violence pretty much forever, with the occasional outbreak might last year's. Even now sensible Israelis are migrating.
"After much soul-searching, however, the Jews of Palestine accepted the proposed partition. The Palestinian Arabs, determined to inherit an undivided Palestinian state, refused."
And in fact if you read Israeli historians, it's obvious that the Israeli government was not going to abide by the decision were going to expel Palestinians, and had not actually accepted the mandate. It's there in the statements of their politicians. The ethnic cleansing predated the establishment of the state by at least several days.
"In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to “possession of the land as a whole.”
Or as Morris puts it "What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought…. In the months of April–May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves. "
"The only element of the partition plan accepted by Israel was that calling for the establishment of a Jewish state.
The other elements, which have never been accepted by Israel, include:
1. The creation of an Arab state, whose boundaries are specified.
2. The creation of a special international zone, encompassing the Jerusalem metropolitan area. A detailed map of the international zone of the City of Jerusalem is part of the resolution.
3. The adoption of a constitution for the Jewish state.
4. The creation of an economic union and a Joint Economic Board for the two states.
5. Jaffa should be an Arab enclave in the Jewish state.
6. There would be almost no Jews residing in the territory of the Arab state, but a large Arab minority would be residing in the Jewish state."
General assembly resolution 181 (ii)
There's a belief among the "Pro-Pals" that theirs is a fight for freedom and justice, most obviously taken to the point of absurdity by the likes of Gays for Gaza. Perhaps their naivety can be understood as confirmation of a belief in the fundamental virtue of human nature - obviously "colonisers" excepted. Quite how the the bashings and murders by the morality police of young women for not covering their hair, for example, fits with their delusions is impossible to understand.
Perhaps they believe that genuine malevolence (what we used to call evil) is ethnically attributed; that some can do no wrong and others no right. Or that freedom and justice, as they know it, are universal motivations. Do they even consider the motivations, or the implications, of the Islamists and Jihadis clamouring for the destruction of Israel? That this is a war against those that are explicitly opposed to freedom and justice?
Former president Bill Clinton:
“And the only time Yasser Arafat didn't tell me the truth was when he promised me he was gonna accept the peace deal that we had worked out, which would have given the Palestinians a state on 96% of the West Bank and 4% of Israel, and they got to choose where the 4% of Israel was. So they would have the effect of the same land of all the West Bank. They would have a capital in East Jerusalem.
I can hardly talk about this…. And they would have equal access all day every day to the security towers that Israel maintained all through the West Bank up to the Golan Heights.
All this was offered, including, I will say it again, a capital in East Jerusalem and 2 of the 4 quadrants of the old city of Jerusalem, confirmed by the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and his cabinet. And they said no.
And I think part of it is that Hamas did not care about a homeland for the Palestinians. They wanted to kill Israelis and make Israel uninhabitable.
Well, I got news for them, they (the Jews) were there first before there their faith (Islam) existed. They were there. In the time of King David, in the southern most tribes, Hadjardia and Samaria.”
As opposed to the naïveté – or maybe just cynicism – of those who simply accept Israeli hasbara and know nothing of the history of the region? Again, you are not picking. Palestinians were never – until recently anyway – fundamentalist. Indeed Hamas put itself forward as a moderate group before they were elected. If you can produce evidence of women in Palestine being oppressed by morality police, please do so.
Incidentally, I managed to stop the practice of calling Palestinians by that demeaning diminutive "pals" on the Huffington Post years ago, when I suggested that perhaps we should start calling Israelis by an equally demeaning word.
Former US negotiator.:
""There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort's failure, but people in Israel shouldn't ignore the bitter truth - the primary sabotage came from the settlements. The Palestinians don't believe that Israel really intends to let them found a state when, at the same time, it is building settlements on the territory meant for that state. We're talking about the announcement of 14,000 housing units, no less. Only now, after talks blew up, did we learn that this is also about expropriating land on a large scale. That does not reconcile with the agreement."
Incidentally, if we're talking about morality police.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/haredi-protesters-allegedly-throw-rocks-at-car-in-jerusalem-causing-crash/
For all those opposed to a two state solution, what is their alternative?
In my view without a two state solution, Israel it will be in continuous occupation and thus war for the next 100 years. It is already nearly 60 years since the 1967 war and the consequent occupation of the West Bank. So long as Israel is in occupation, they will be subject to UN oversight. Israel complains they are always the subject of UN resolutions, but that is because they have the status of an occupying power in regard to the West Bank and Gaza. That won't change unless the status quo changes in a way that accords with international law.
If Israel tries to incorporate either of these territories into its own state and/or tries to eject the Palestinians, as some Israeli government Ministers propose, Israel will suffer a catastrophic loss of international support. Even the US would have some difficulty in fully supporting Israel.
I come back to the initial question. Is there really any other long term solution other than a two state solution?
Obviously Israel will need security guarantees, but their alternative is outbreaks of war every few years as they continue the occupation.
At the moment Israel is in occupation of Gaza with responsibility for the citizens of Gaza. That means continuing civil aid, given that Israel can't be seen to literally starve the Palestinians in Gaza.
The war is now over 1 year long. Is Israel going to continue the current tempo of operations for another year or two?
I think not. At some point the political pressure within Israel will blow and a better alternative will be found.
I agree with the Hon. Dr Mapp. There is a problem with those that refuse to acknowledge there must be co-existence, or have a view that there can never be a peaceful levant. There are no perpetual conflicts.
There are those which only recognize Palestinian rights, and deny the rights of Israel and Israelis. This is anachronistic and ridiculous. It is possible to be critical of the historical justifications for Israel, but that does nothing to progress todays situation.
I do not believe in any Biblical right of the Jewish people. Palestinians are the descendants of same people as the Judeans and Samaritans in the Bible, just ones that stayed on the land and converted to Christianity then to Islam. All three groups are shown as having heritage back to the Iron Age. It is also being shown with growing evidence that the Tora may not have been widely observed until the Hasmonean period or the Hebrew bible largely written until the Hellenistic period. Our view of the 'Holy Land', identity and religion is very questionable. Nor do I think there was justification for the British or United Nations creating a Jewish state on Palestinian territory. Europe's guilt was put upon the Palestinians.
What I do acknowledge is that there are 5 million Israelis that have built a nation over the last nearly eighty years. The foundation is not the point, there is an established state and people that must be accommodated and must be secure and safe.
Similarly, I reject the disempowerment and marginalization of the Palestinian people. They must have the right to self-determination. If Israel is to be safe and thriving, then there must be an international movement that includes Israel to rebuild civil society in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon. This includes education and health facilities. Further, Israel must work to create an environment in which alternative leadership can evolve that will not consider the atrocities of 7/10 as acceptable. This means not imprisoning all potential leaders. Remember, Netanyahu had used Hamas to undermine the previous Palestinian authorities. New and mandated leadership for Gaza must be able to develop, this means community infrastructure and a civil society that can produce the leadership required.
The two state solution remains the only one on the table and is the one we must focus on as a future settlement. This is a shame as if there was full trust and cooperation the 'Belgium solution' was always the, for me, the better and most durable co-existence. This is one that has been floated for decades. Where there are two areas or Palestinian governance (Gaza and the West Bank), Israel as a Jewish homeland, and the city of Jerusalem a co-governed municipality. An over-arching governing body would provide a vehicle for areas of mutual interests. As we know with our own realm arrangements, sovereignty can be shaped to the needs of the defined people. Unfortunately, that solution has disappeared from the discourse, leaving the two state solution as the remaining narrative.
Still, as John Winston Ono Lennon mused 'you may say I'm a dreamer ...'
Post a Comment