Not Particularly Smart
It can be said that John Kerry’s forecast is an optimistic one: For years, certain EU groups have considered the two-state solution already eliminated.
Two days after the Ma’alot massacre, on May 17, 1974, a U.S. embassy official sent a report about his meeting with a senior member of the PLO close to Yasser Arafat, Shafiq al-Hout. The telegram was exposed by WikiLeaks around two weeks ago as part of a large collection of documents related to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
At the time, al-Hout said to the Americans “before (the massacre) in Ma’alot, Nayef Hawatmeh was in trouble and lost his influence because he supported Arafat’s idea to create a ‘National Palestinian Authority.'”* This is, in fact, the beginning of the Palestinian Authority idea as we’ve known it since the Oslo Accord.
The Palestinians, who aspired to establish a state on the entire area of Israel, began rolling out the idea in 1974 that as a temporary solution, a “national authority” rather than a “state” would be established and would control all areas “released from Israeli occupation.”
Almost 20 years passed before this idea came to fruition. It did not bring peace, but the Palestinans have a national authority, self-government. It is broad and comprehensive as long as peace in the area is deep-rooted and stable. It can be argued for John Kerry that if it took 20 years to establish the dwindling authority in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, another 40 years may pass until a Palestinian state is established on these territories, or on any others east of the green line.
The Struggle Will Continue
It can also be said that Kerry’s prediction that the window of opportunity for the establishment of a Palestinian state will close within two years is optimistic: In certain EU groups — for example, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs — it has been thought for years that the two-state solution had been eliminated. They continue to make motions toward the two-state solution, but mainly as leverage to pressure and threaten Israel, not because they believe it is possible.
The view in Europe, and within the Palestinian leadership, is that since the U.N. has already recognized the existence of the Palestinian state, the only issue is drawing Israel back to the borders apparently recognized by the U.N. This could be what Kerry had in mind. The U.S. will grant another two years for reaching an agreed partition. After this, there is the danger that international forces will be allowed to act in order to implement the U.N.’s decision. This move would be to pressure Israel into a decision that will lead to a second unilateral disengagement.
Ehud Barak has recently suggested the need to carry out one-sided actions; this may be what he meant. Under the current government, a unilateral withdrawal to agreed-upon borders seems unrealistic. John Kerry’s statement doesn’t seem particularly smart. It encourages Abu Mazen to buy time. The best way to go forward for Israel and the U.S. is to reach an agreement between them — with principles that will form the territorial and demographic foundation for a solution. It seems that on this topic, the Obama government’s problems remain as they were before the successful visit a month ago.
Kerry’s assigned expiry date does not create a new situation. The Palestinian Authority won’t be going anywhere in two years. Even in the one-state solution, the Palestinians will demand negotiations with their national leadership, which will not be as simple as resettlement under the Israeli flag and the gradual granting of citizenship to all residents. Just like now, the negotiations will be accompanied by an all-too-familiar struggle.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Two days after the Ma’alot massacre, on May 17, 1974, a U.S. embassy official sent a report about his meeting with a senior member of the PLO close to Yasser Arafat, Shafiq al-Hout. The telegram was exposed by WikiLeaks around two weeks ago as part of a large collection of documents related to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
At the time, al-Hout said to the Americans “before (the massacre) in Ma’alot, Nayef Hawatmeh was in trouble and lost his influence because he supported Arafat’s idea to create a ‘National Palestinian Authority.'”* This is, in fact, the beginning of the Palestinian Authority idea as we’ve known it since the Oslo Accord.
The Palestinians, who aspired to establish a state on the entire area of Israel, began rolling out the idea in 1974 that as a temporary solution, a “national authority” rather than a “state” would be established and would control all areas “released from Israeli occupation.”
Almost 20 years passed before this idea came to fruition. It did not bring peace, but the Palestinans have a national authority, self-government. It is broad and comprehensive as long as peace in the area is deep-rooted and stable. It can be argued for John Kerry that if it took 20 years to establish the dwindling authority in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, another 40 years may pass until a Palestinian state is established on these territories, or on any others east of the green line.
The Struggle Will Continue
It can also be said that Kerry’s prediction that the window of opportunity for the establishment of a Palestinian state will close within two years is optimistic: In certain EU groups — for example, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs — it has been thought for years that the two-state solution had been eliminated. They continue to make motions toward the two-state solution, but mainly as leverage to pressure and threaten Israel, not because they believe it is possible.
The view in Europe, and within the Palestinian leadership, is that since the U.N. has already recognized the existence of the Palestinian state, the only issue is drawing Israel back to the borders apparently recognized by the U.N. This could be what Kerry had in mind. The U.S. will grant another two years for reaching an agreed partition. After this, there is the danger that international forces will be allowed to act in order to implement the U.N.’s decision. This move would be to pressure Israel into a decision that will lead to a second unilateral disengagement.
Ehud Barak has recently suggested the need to carry out one-sided actions; this may be what he meant. Under the current government, a unilateral withdrawal to agreed-upon borders seems unrealistic. John Kerry’s statement doesn’t seem particularly smart. It encourages Abu Mazen to buy time. The best way to go forward for Israel and the U.S. is to reach an agreement between them — with principles that will form the territorial and demographic foundation for a solution. It seems that on this topic, the Obama government’s problems remain as they were before the successful visit a month ago.
Kerry’s assigned expiry date does not create a new situation. The Palestinian Authority won’t be going anywhere in two years. Even in the one-state solution, the Palestinians will demand negotiations with their national leadership, which will not be as simple as resettlement under the Israeli flag and the gradual granting of citizenship to all residents. Just like now, the negotiations will be accompanied by an all-too-familiar struggle.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "The Tsarnaev Brothers: Third-Culture Children, from Beslan to Boston")
