The next round in the bloody conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is soon to come. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran called for a third Intifada, and Israel warned that any attacks would provoke immediate retaliation. Since the failure of the Oslo agreement, the Near East experienced a creeping radicalization. The occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the root of the conflict, is now approaching its 42nd anniversary, which makes it one of the longest and bloodiest occupations of modern history. This is also true for Gaza which, even though not directly occupied anymore, remains completely dependent on Israel. In fact, the oppressive blockade was a primary reason behind Hamas ending its truce.
Is the mantra of the "road map" according to the Oslo accord the only answer to the escalating violence? As an alternative, John Bolton suggested that one should consider adding the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. Such an approach would face some difficulties, since a three-state-solution would transfer the burden of security to the neighboring Arab states, bury the idea of Palestinian nationality, and delay democratic reforms. However, it also offers numerous opportunities:
- The three-state-solution essentially restores the pre-1967 situation, which is a core demand of all Arab states and the baseline of international law.
- It would immediately install reliable and efficient security architectures. No other solution could match the efficiency which is offered by Jordan’s and Egypt’s security forces.
- It would immediately end the Israeli occupation, which is the core of the violence. Hamas would probably lose support very quickly.
- Trust in international law would be restored, since the hidden colonisation of the West Bank by Israeli settlers would be pulled back. The settlements and countless checkpoints of the "separation wall" could be removed, and life in the Palestinian territories could normalize.
- Palestinian refugees could return, and the economic and water crisis in the occupied territories could come to an end. Palestinians would be connected to the economies of Jordan and Egypt and get access to the wells on their territory.
- A final agreement about the status of East Jerusalem and the Holy Sites could be postponed, and might later be managed as an internationally administered open city.
- Israel’s long term security needs could be addressed by a regional security architecture involving Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Iraq. It seems possible that Syria might join such a deal in exchange for the Golan Heights. The Middle East conflict could then be considered solved.
- The idea of a Palestinian nation would have to sacrificed; however, the "national" identities of the present Arab states are in any case quite new, artificial constructs. A three-state-solution could revive Pan-Arabism which some western powers might consider dangerous. However, it is more than likely that such Pan-Arabism would not be aggressive or act against Israel, but allow the Arab league to achieve some progress according to the example of the EU.
It seems likely that the three-state-solution would have to be enforced against Israeli concerns, since it would reverse some gains of the 1967 war. However, Jordan and Egypt have proven to be trusted partners and to share Israel’s security interests. Most importantly, the suffering of the Palestinians would end and daily life in the West Bank could return to normality. If Israel is serious about its claim that no annexation of the West Bank is planned, the three-state-solution would also be in its best interest; not least because trust in Israel’s credibility and in the validity of international laws would be restored.
Dr. Bernhard Lucke is a researcher dealing with environmental and resource management at the Brandenburgische Technische Universität in Cottbus, Germany.
- 7
February 28, 2009
Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)
Already before the 1967 war, the loyality of the Palestinians was questioned. On the one hand, some people say that King Hussein readily abandoned the West Bank when it became clear that Nasser would lose, since he regarded Palestine as burden for his throne. On the other hand, most Jordanians regard the division in "Palestinians" and "Jordanians" as something artificial and related to colonial borders drawn by Britain and France.
I still think that the three-states-solution offers the best way forward, but it requires a long-term engagement of the UN and the international community. Jordan and Egypt will only agree if ensured strong support for a long time to come.