Time for alternative solutions

Op-ed: Oslo failed due to mistaken assumption that two-state solution is viable

Eddie Yair Fraiman|Published: 01.19.11 , 02:33

The peace process is frozen. Despite the fact that “settlement freeze” is a term meant to describe the halting of construction in Judea and Samaria, it seems that the US government was disappointed by both sides, and now the entire negotiations mechanism has frozen. President Barack Obama shifted the management of negotiations to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and American pressure has since decreased.

The impasse has alarmed the Israeli Left, which claims that freezing negotiations could harm Israel. However, in light of the waves of violence that followed the Oslo Peace Accords, Camp David, and other previous rounds of negotiation, one has to wonder whether freezing the process is actually positive after all.

Israeli society has a duty to examine whether the moves made in the last two decades were correct, and through that reflection, to consider whether freezing the peace process is actually a negative turn of events, as the Israeli Left claims.

The Oslo Accords set a historical precedent. For the first time, the PLO received trappings of independence, such as self-regulating Palestinian police forces and full control over territory without a formal declaration of an independent state. In PA-controlled areas today, there are governmental institutions, judiciary and local enforcement. PLO leaders have international recognition, the organization has a representative in the United Nations, and only recently seven South American countries formally recognized the Palestinian state.

In fact, according to the terms of the 1933 Montevideo Treaty - a foundational document in international law - the PLO has de-facto political independence in area A's Palestinian controlled territory. Apparently, Palestinians-Arabs have already achieved most of their goals.

Why does PLO refuse?

But actually they haven't. Palestinian-Arab leaders are not satisfied, and they find many reasons not to support the solution of two states for two peoples, despite their exclusive control of large areas. The original purpose of the PLO to establish a Palestinian state became viable in light of the Oslo Accords. However, we must examine why the leaders of the PLO refused to agree and move forward with the far-reaching statehood proposals of multiple Israeli leaders including Barak, Sharon, Olmert and Livni.

The question is whether the Arab aim is to establish an independent state, or rather, if their actual ultimate goal is more simply the destruction of the Jewish state according to the Stages Theory of “first take by negotiation, then by force.” This question has no answer.

The peace process impasse does not threaten the Palestinian declaration of independence, in the same way that the solution to the Arab-Jewish conflict does not lie in building a Palestinian-Arab state west of the Jordan River. It actually already exists de facto (to the sorrow of many) according to previous agreements.

In fact, there are currently two sovereign Palestinian-Arab entities: the State of the PLO in the West Bank, and the Hamas State in the Gaza Strip. These two states have sovereignty as determined by population, territory, governance and foreign relations. This sovereignty is stronger compared to other minority claims in the world, such as the Kurds, Roma or the Tibetans. Moreover, there are governmentally institutionalized political arrangements in a many nations with minorities, who don't enjoy sovereignty as strong as the Palestinian-Arabs. These include minorities in Spain, Canada, and the UK.

Thus, the resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict does not lie in a declaration of independence by the Palestinian-Arabs in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It won't come about through the hopes of two national states. On both sides of the fence live Arabs as well as Jews. The failure of the Oslo Accords and Camp-David arose from these erroneous assumptions.

What's the solution?

It's time to offer more creative solutions. Keep in mind that the Jewish-Arab Middle East conflict is not the only national or majority-minority conflict in the world. Many nations have fought for far longer than us, yet eventually agreed to live together, side by side.

Possible solutions to the Jewish-Arab conflict can be similar to political arrangements involving other national minorities in the world. Formulas of a federal Israel, with a Jewish majority in Israel, while providing minority rights of cultural and civic autonomy, such as the Scots in Britain or the Basques in Spain, is a possible solution to the conflict.

Likud leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Menachem Begin believed that the solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict in the Land of Israel lies in providing autonomy to the Palestinian-Arabs. This belief is as relevant today as it was then.

The US government has to understand that even if it beats the heads of Israeli and Palestinian-Arab leaders together, still there will remain core issues for which a real solution simply does not exist. Not in this generation anyway.

If the US continues to believe in and push for a "two states for two peoples” solution it will fail, just as so many other previous rounds of negotiations have failed. The question is who will be brave enough to suggest other solutions - real ones this time.