Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:36:10 +0100
Israel's Annexation Plan for Palestine
The "two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been
more a useful excuse to do nothing than a realistic possibility, a point now
being expressed openly by some Israeli leaders who favor simply imposing
their will on the Palestinians, as John V. Whitbeck notes.
By John V. Whitbeck
November 6, 2014
Naftali Bennett, Israel's Minister of the Economy and leader of the Jewish
Home Party, a major component of the current Israeli government, is widely
seen as the politician on the rise in Israel and a potential successor to
Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister after the next Israeli elections.
On Nov. 6, he published a highly significant opinion article, entitled "For
Israel, two-state is no solution," in the International New York Times. In
this article, Bennett argues that "for its security, Israel cannot withdraw
from more territory and cannot allow for the establishment of a Palestinian
state in the West Bank" and then proceeds to propose his own "four-step
plan" for peace.
His "peace plan" notably includes Israel's unilateral annexation of Area C,
approximately 61 percent of the West Bank, so as to "reduce the scope of the
territory in dispute, making it easier to reach a long-term agreement in the
future." In his vision of peace, any "Palestinian entity" on residual ink
spots of Areas A and B of the West Bank "will be short of a state. It will
not control its own borders and will not be allowed to have an army." As for
Gaza, "it cannot be a party to any agreement."
Bennett concludes: "I am aware that the world will not immediately accept
this proposal. It seems to go against everything Israel, the Palestinians
and the international community have worked toward over the last 20 years.
But I will work to make this plan government policy because there is a new
realty in the Middle East, which has brought an end to the viability of the
Oslo peace process."
One may hope that Bennett's blast of honesty will blow away any residual
illusions within those Western governments which have for decades been
blocking the realization of a Palestinian state on the ground by arguing
that a Palestinian state can only exist, even on a purely legal level, as a
result of negotiations with Israel - i.e., after almost half a century of
belligerent occupation, with the prior consent of the occupying power.
One may also hope that Bennett's honesty will help Western governments to
recognize the urgent necessity to save the two-state solution by one or,
ideally, both of the only two conceivable courses of action to do so - (1)
the United States not vetoing an application by the State of Palestine for
full member-state status at the United Nations and, thereby, letting it
happen and (2) building on the virtuous example of Sweden, a tsunami of
diplomatic recognitions of the State of Palestine by the 19 European Union
states which have not yet done so, followed by a clear and coherent program
for intensifying EU sanctions until Israel complies with international law
and relevant UN resolutions by withdrawing fully from the occupied State of
Palestine.
In a world that still professes formal respect for international law and the
UN Charter, the occupation of a UN member state by a neighboring state
cannot be permitted to endure indefinitely, and Europe is Israel's principal
trading partner and cultural homeland, with Israel enjoying special
privileges that give it many of the advantages of virtual EU membership.
Either course of action would represent a wholesome and constructive reality
check to Israeli society and render the end of the occupation a mere
question of when rather than of whether.
It appears that the legislatures of France and Spain are on track to vote on
recognizing the State of Palestine prior to year-end, although, as in the
case of the overwhelming favorable vote in the British House of Commons and
the unanimous favorable vote in the Irish Senate, neither vote would be
binding on their respective governments.
If the U.S. government were to permit the State of Palestine to become a UN
member state, there is good reason to believe that a wave of diplomatic
recognitions by EU states, which have traditionally deferred to the United
States on all matters relating to Israel, Palestine and the so-called "peace
process," would rapidly follow.
There is also some reason for hope that the Republican Party's new total
control of the U.S. Congress, which rules out any domestic achievement for
President Obama in his final two years in office, will focus the Nobel Peace
Prize laureate's attention on leaving a legacy of historic foreign policy
achievements which remain within his discretion and power to achieve.
If, however, neither of these two courses of action has eventuated by
mid-2015, the Palestinian people and leadership, as well as all decent
people who truly seek peace with some measure of justice in
Israel/Palestine, should consign the "two-state solution" and the current
"two-state legality" to the trash heap of history, accept the current
"one-state reality" and embark upon a principled, long-term, anti-apartheid
struggle for equal rights and human dignity in a unitary state for all who
live in former Mandate Palestine.
John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian
negotiating team in negotiations with Israel.
<http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/westbank-gaza-israel.p
ng> A map showing Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Territories.
A map showing Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Territories.
(image/png attachment: image001.png)