4
When Donald Trump launched his thunderbolt about the possibility of a single state for Israelis and Palestinians, he didn’t surprise those who have followed events in the Middle East. The new American president’s strong sympathy for Israel has long been on display, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and senior adviser, is a Zionist sympathiser, and has spent much time in Israel. Standing by Trump’s side when he made this announcement was Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, a man Trump claims as an old friend.
Although rejected earlier by the US, the one-state proposal has been under informal discussion for some time, especially among right-wing circles in Israel. Even pragmatic Palestinians, recognising the futility of the struggle for their own state and watching the unending construction of Israeli settlements on their land, have discussed the possibility of sharing a single state with their occupiers.
But what would such a state look like? Obviously, Palestinians would insist on equal rights, but it is highly unlikely that this would be on offer. According to demographic projections, there will be more Palestinians than Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza by 2020, given the consistently higher birth rates for Palestinians. Today, Palestinian MPs in the Israeli Knesset are barely tolerated, but if their numbers were to rise significantly in Greater Israel, the balance of power could swiftly shift. Above all, the Jewish character of the state of Israel would be forever transformed.
This is something that would be unacceptable to even the most tolerant and liberal Israeli, not that there are too many of those left. It is for this reason that those in Israel advocating this ‘solution’ have categorically rejected any possibility of giving full voting rights to Palestinians. Naftali Bennettt, leader of the Jewish Home Party, has said that while Palestinians would have ‘personal rights’ in the single state, they would not have ‘national rights’, thereby denying them the vote in national elections and referendums. Bennett maintains that Gaza is already a Palestinian state, even though it is a tiny enclave with 1.7 million people crowding into the most densely populated territory in the world. Israel controls its borders and has denied it access to the open sea.
Bennett stuck a distinctly triumphal note after Donald Trump’s election when he said to the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem recently: “We have a chance to reset the structure across the Middle East. We have to seize the opportunity and act on it.” In the immediate aftermath of the Trump victory, he said: “The era of the Palestinian State is over.”
As it is, decades of illegal settlement construction across the West Bank has made the establishment of an independent state virtually impossible. Over 600,000 settlers inhabit these walled communities, and are a powerful political impediment to any ‘land for peace’ deal. The only American president to resist this land-grab was the senior George Bush who blocked American financial guarantees for construction. Partly as a result, he lost his bid for re-election.
Now, with the US no longer paying even lip service to the concept of a separate state for the Palestinians, it would appear that they have lost all hope of taking at least some of their land back from their Israeli occupiers. As it is, Palestinians had lost the support of Sunni Arabs, who, under Saudi Arabia, had aligned themselves with Israel in their anti-Iran frenzy. Let down by most Muslim states, they now rely only on the European Union for economic and political support.
Even before Trump occupied the White House, successive US administrations have helped Israel stymie the desultory peace talks that went nowhere. Obama, for all his fine words, did more to help Israel militarily than any of his predecessors. Last year, he approved a $38 billion military package over the next ten years, the largest ever signed. Just before he left office, he did order abstention from a Security Council vote declaring settlement activities illegal, but Israel has flouted plenty of UN resolutions before. As it is, Obama’s symbolic gesture was too little, too late.
Already, Trump has signalled his willingness to shift the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; thus far, the response from the Arab world has been muted. This is hardly surprising, given the findings of recent polls that indicate that growing numbers of younger Arabs are indifferent to the suffering and fate of Palestinians. And in the US, 62pc of Americans are more favourable to Israel than they are to Palestinians, so the pro-Israel position taken by successive American presidents is understandable in political terms.
The Palestinians lost their last chance for statehood at Camp David in Bill Clinton’s last days as president in 1999. Although the deal offered to Yasser Arafat was far from perfect, it was a lot better than the one now being concocted by right-wing Israelis. Even though Trump publicly stated that he would go along with either of the two options agreed on by both sides, there is little doubt that he will do whatever Netanyahu would like him to.
His appointment of his inexperienced but pro-Israel son-in-law as his principal negotiator, and his personal bankruptcy lawyer, David Friedman, as his pick for US ambassador to Israel, are clear signals of a radically different approach towards the long-smouldering conflict. Friedman has long advocated the annexation of the West Bank, and has called Obama an anti-Semite. Small wonder that five of his predecessors have written a letter to the Senate, asking senators to deny Friedman confirmation. But given the Republican domination of the Senate, it is almost certain that he will be soon packing his bags to take up his new assignment.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the defeat of Arab armies and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Israelis and their supporters will have much to celebrate.
Published in Dawn, February 20th , 2017
