A Badly Needed International
Process for the Two-States Solution
April 2015
Any serious analysis of the Palestinian Israeli conflict subsequent to the Israeli elections of the
17th of March, will not take the results of those elections as a point of departure, as if these
results represent a starting point for a new path. The new path was there all the while since
the Israeli occupation started in 1967, and ever since one can witness a process of colonization
that went on systematically, regardless of the party that was ruling Israel.
This colonization process is practiced since 1967 via five methods that were implemented in
different ways during the 48 years that passed since 1967:
First: the colonization of the place, space, territory, and all the land( Judization process).
Second: changing the shape of the landscape.
Third: displacement, mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing to tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Fourth: the replacement process of Jewish colonizers in the Palestinian Territories in the
expense of those
Palestinians displaced( the Israelization process).
Fifth: The isolation of the Palestinians that were not displaced in fragmented enclaves that are
disconnected from each other by the Israeli colonies that exist between each one and the other;
or by the separation wall; or by the prevention of freedom of access between the three areas of
West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem through the closure system.
These colonization procedures are combined with ethnographic ones. The latter is not excluded
to the ethnic cleansing that is taking place only, but it also includes the definition of those
isolated enclaves in different ways by each enclave and the other, and as less than Palestinian
citizens. In this sense the Israeli imposed law considers the Palestinian Jerusalemites to be as
Jordanian citizens residing permanently in Israel, a definition that continued also after Oslo
declaration of Principles of 1993. While the West Bank people were considered before Oslo to
be Jordanian citizens residing in areas administered by Israel, and after Oslo they became
Palestinian residents in areas that are under dispute. In regards to the Gazans they were
considered prior to Oslo to be People with unknown nationality residing in areas administered
by Israel, and they became to be considered after Oslo as Palestinian residents in a
Palestinian
territory.
Upon these categorizations, Gaza- which covers space that exceeds only a little bit more than
one percent of the historical Palestine, is the Palestinian State, according to the Israeli policies.
Some also add Jericho based on 1994 Cairo agreement, and Jenin based on Sharons
dismantling of the Israeli colonies there similar to Gaza in 2006. These Israeli policies continued
from 1967 till today regardless of which party/ coalition that was ruling Israel.
In the last Israeli elections, the policies above expressed themselves, while some parties went
further on building more settlements to sustain the Israeli control over the Palestinian Territories
and move from that point to the point of annexation. The programs of the Likud and the right
wing parties towards Palestine in the last elections ranged for example between the idea of de
facto annexation and de jure annexation
of Area C of West Bank which represents 64 Percent of the size of all West Bank. While the
Zionist Camp program spoke about a Palestinian State with land swap, keeping the Israeli
security presence in the Jordan Valley, annexing the big settlements blocks to Israel, and
keeping Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel, while looking to get an arrangement for the
Palestinians to be agreed upon through negotiations. Both the
Zionist Camp, the Likud and the right wing Parties agreed on that no single Palestinian
refugee, will be allowed to return to Israel, as mentioned in the Zionist Camp platform
(http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/How-the-parties-stand-on-the-...
peace-process-394028) and quoted by Issac Herzog,Jerusalem needs to be united but it can
be the capital of two nations ( from, Palestinians must recognize Jewish state, Labor chief says.
The Times of Israel. March 15 2014)
It can be concluded then that the big political parties programs in Israel did not include the
minimum that the Palestinians can live with. Further than that some positions of the Zionist
Camp gave priority to a war against Hamas or Hizbollah on reaching an agreement with the
Palestinian authority. Moreover they spoke about a framework agreement rather than a final
agreement, as Livni proposed in her speech at the Haaretz Peace Conference in July 2014;
also in her pieceFailure not an Option for the Conferneces special magazine.
or by the separation wall; or by the prevention of freedom of access between the three areas of
Also Herzog spoke about another long period of three years of negotiations without a guarantee
of what the results will be and without a commitment to freeze the settlement expansion in the
big settlement blocs in East Jerusalem and the West Bank during the negotiations.
One also will remember Livnis idea in 2007 of getting to a framework agreement that will be put
in the drawers and will not be implemented till Hamas regime in Gaza being dismantled.
Therefore the Israeli elections included roughly two camps: one that is clear on their ideas
ranging between de facto or de jure annexation, and the second that looks for negotiations but
is not presenting the minimum requirements that the Palestinians can accept in order to go back
to negotiations.
Some might argue that if the Zionist Camp succeeded, this might have created a situation
where a bargaining process mightve been placed leading subsequently to a compromise that
will result with the resumption of the negotiations. The Arab List inside the Israeli Knesset
wouldve also played a role in creating such compromise in case the Zionist Camp needed their
support to the coalition from the outside.
While such a thought presented a possibility that mightve happened if the Zionist Camp
succeeded in the elections leading subsequently to the resumption of the negotiations- however
the history of the Israeli Palestinian negotiations has shown that such arrangements cannot
guarantee that an agreement will be achieved given the content of the program of the Zionist
Camp presented above that does not meet the minimum requirements of the Palestinians.
After 25 years of negotiations starting with the 8 rounds of talks in Washington in 1990, a better
way would be by having clear cut positions and not the so called constructive ambiguity
formulas that are capable to resume the negotiations, but are not capable to reach
agreements. Many attempts and failures were already made and there is no space any more for
another failure.
A better way can be achieved by using the Arab Peace Initiative as a point of departure for a UN
Security Council resolution that will create a mechanism for the creation of the Palestinian State
besides Israel and on 1967 borders, using tools and procedures that will make Israel move
forward regardless to its rejectionist position towards the API and the ending of the occupation.
With the declarations of the Arab Summit in Cairo March 28-29 2015, the API has become the
only game in town with the potential to move the Israeli- Palestinian track forward. Moreover,
the Arab Foreign Ministers gave their support to a UN SC resolution for the API on March 10th
2015 with reaffirmation by the Arab League during the Arab Summit on March 29th 2015,
coupled with the announcement by Saudi King Salman Ibn Abdelaziz for a UN Security Council
resolution for the implementation of the API and a creation of a special UN envoy to see through
with the APs implementation.
TO APPROACH THE IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVELY, THE COMPONENTS OF THE
RESOLUTION CAN INCLUDE:
1. Two states based on 1967 borders with agreed upon equal borders modifications and not
only reciprocal ones.
2. Go beyond the unilateral recognition of Israel as a Jewish state controversial issue by the
recognition of the attachments and narratives of both the Israelis and Palestinians, with an
arrangement that will
respect the aforementioned attachments and narratives.
3. Sovereignty of Jerusalem should not be excluded to one party.
4. Reciprocal security arrangements that meet the requirements of both
the Israelis and the Palestinians.
5. An agreed upon solution the refugee problem in accordance to the UN
Resolution 194.
THE RESOLUTION CAN INCLUDE CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE EXECUTION:
1. Commencing with an international conference for peace that will create mechanism for follow-
up on the time-framed negotiations; the mechanism will include cooperation between Quartet
countries and the Arab League with Jordan and Egypt.
2. During the negotiations, both sides must fulfill obligations according to previous agreements.
The international community will have its disposal tools and procedures to be used against the
party(ies) that does not meet its obligations or is unable to go forward with the resolutions
implementation.
3. The implementation of the resolution will be supported by a follow-up committee that will
bridge communication between the Arab League, Quartet, and the parties; while Jordan and
Egypt- due to their
diplomatic relations with Israel- will communicate between Israel and the Arab League.
INCENTIVES TO BE PROVIDED TO THE PALESTINIANS TO THE EFFECT OF ACCEPTING
PALESTINE AS A FULL-MEMBER TO THE UN. ADDITIONALLY, TO ALLOW PALESTINIAN
RECONCILIATION TO BE IMPLEMENTED, BUILD GAZA, AND CREATE PALESTINIAN
FACTS ON THE GROUND IN EAST JERUSALEM AND AREA C OF WEST BANK, AND THE
LINKING OF THE WEST BANK AND GAZA; MOREOVER, THE TASKS OF THE QUARTET
OFFICE IN JERUSALEM TO BE TRANSFORMED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH SUCH
TRANSFORMATIVE TASKS THAT WILL CREATE A SYMMETRY IN THE GROUND
BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES OF THE CONFLICT.
As such, one will highly consider the reports coming from New York regarding a possible
Quartet process of activating the API as a basis for a resolution on the bi-lateral Israeli-
Palestinian track. The only way out of impasse looks to be a Quartet based plan that will start
with a new UNSC clear cut resolution that will be implemented with or without negotiations
leading to two States Solution.
Walid Salem
Lecturer at Al Quds University
Director of the Center for Democracy and Community Development in
Jerusalem.
Contact: 00972547652907 / 097226281151 / cd@cd-cd.org / walidsociety@gmail.com
www.cd-cd.org www.theapiregionalnetwork.net
