The Four-State Solution
- 09.24.2008 - 10:06 AMFor those interested in the ongoing one-state/two-state debate I’ve chronicled here (i.e., will Palestinians drop the “two state solution” dream? will Israelis panic?), this new study is a must-read.
Giora Eiland, one of the more thoughtful officers to have served in Israel’s military in the recent decade, and former head of the (relatively weak and uninfluential) Israeli National Security Council, wrote a 40-page study titled “Rethinking the Two State Solution.”
See? As I previously advised, Palestinians aren’t the only ones able to “rethink” the Two-State Solution (hereafter TSS). Israelis can do it too. And Eiland’s reasoning for doing so will sound surprisingly familiar to the reasoning driving Palestinian thinkers away from the TSS. Eiland started showing signs of skepticism regarding the TSS a couple of years ago. In a paper he wrote in 2006, he concluded that:
[T]he international community adheres to the paradigm of two states for two nations, namely a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and maintains that this solution to the conflict may be quickly realized. The problem is that this solution will not necessarily assure stability.
And now he sounds even more skeptical:
[I]t is difficult to believe that a comprehensive solution based on the conventional two-state concept can be reached in the foreseeable future. Under these circumstances, it is important to explore other possibilities for ending the conflict rather than insisting on a concept that has failed at least four times in the past seven decades.
However, the solutions Eiland has in mind aren’t exactly those the Palestinians are threatening Israel with (one state for the two people). He calls his plan a “regional peace agreement,” and demands sacrifices not just from Israel but also from two Arab counties supposedly interested in solving the Palestinian problem:
The Palestinians will receive an area the equivalent of 105 percent of the original “1967 borders territory.” Specifically, this land will include the modified pre-1967 areas, the territory transferred by Egypt (equivalent to the West Bank areas the Palestinians will cede to Israel), and the territory transferred by Jordan (equivalent to about 5 percent of the West Bank). The additional territory will make a substantive economic difference for the Palestinians, facilitating the resolution of the refugee problem by offering many a bright future in the “greater Gaza.”
In effect, a solution involving the good-faith efforts of four states. But Eiland wasn’t born yesterday: he knowns that Egypt and Jordan aren’t likely to get on board. But even if they don’t, he says, it’s not the end of the world–or the end of Israel as a Jewish state, as Palestinians calling for one-state solution would hope:
If in fact the regional players and the international community are unable to step forward and resolve the conflict as proposed herein, then the most likely outcome would be a stalemate and a continuation of the current trends. In other words, radical Islamist forces would continue to grow stronger in the territories, the Palestinian Authority would remain weak, and Hamas would retain control in Gaza. Under such circumstances, the physical and the economic connection between the West Bank and Gaza would become more tenuous, and the concept of one political entity would become less and less self-evident. At the same time, Israel’s security barrier would likely become a firmer boundary, the Israel Defense Forces would maintain operations throughout the West Bank, and the number of settlers would grow steadily.
This unfortunate scenario would nevertheless be sustainable for a significant period of time-at least for Israelis. Although Israel would face increased international criticism, the real losers in the indefinite maintenance of the status quo would be the Palestinians.
But this has never stopped them from choosing the wrong path before, has it?
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
