Two-state solution summit should be bold and daring

Arab News

a day ago

https://arab.news/n8wrz
When France and Saudi Arabia co-chair the International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Palestinian Question and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution in New York later this month, it might be the last opportunity for the international community to salvage a peace agreement along these lines. Beyond making a bold statement about its commitment to bringing this conflict to a peaceful end, it must send a message, in no uncertain terms, that it will not tolerate any attempts to block such a solution.
The wording of the invitation to the willing participants reflects a determination to make this gathering count, by stating that 'the conference is intended to serve as a point of no return, paving the way for ending the occupation and promoting a permanent settlement based on the two-state solution.' But to be successful, it must be followed by courageous actions.
To begin with, France, the UK and other EU members that have not done so already should recognize Palestinian statehood. This would be a long overdue but necessary acknowledgement that recognizing Palestinian statehood is not conditional on the Palestinian leadership succumbing to any demand for concessions by Israel. Such recognition will remove a crucial aspect of the asymmetry between the two protagonists in one of the longest-running conflicts in modern history. It will ensure that all who live in historical Palestine enjoy the same human, political and civil rights and are capable of fulfilling their national aspirations and individual potential, as was already envisaged in UN Resolution 181 of 1947, better known as the Partition Plan.
It is of immense significance that this conference will be co-chaired by Saudi-Arabia and France, representing a unique cooperation. It brings together a leading regional force that, in 2002, initiated the most promising peace plan that could have put this conflict behind us, had it not been rejected by Israel, and a major European force that is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. This must have enough weight, together with the other high-level participants, to encourage the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to understand that it is high time for them to move forward along the route to a two-state solution deal.
There are many out there who are skeptical that the two-state solution is still possible and who suspect that such a conference is either a naive attempt or simply lip service to bringing about a peace that will never materialize. Both views are misplaced and unhelpful, not because a two-state solution is a panacea by itself, but because, among all possible alternatives, it is still the most viable answer, although it does need to be adjusted to reflect changing circumstances since the Oslo process collapsed. Most promising is a confederation model that is, in principle, a two-state solution in a one-state reality, which best reflects the current state of affairs.
France, the UK and EU members that have not done so already should recognize Palestinian statehood.
Yossi Mekelberg
The alternative to a two-state solution is to once more let the current situation drag on and risk even worse consequences than the world has witnessed over the last 20 months, for both peoples, with far-reaching implications for the region and beyond.
There are also three possible models of a one-state solution — and they are all either unattractive or unviable.
The ultrareligious-nationalists in Israel aspire to a single state in which the West Bank and Gaza are annexed by Israel and as many Palestinians as possible are 'encouraged' to leave to ensure an absolute Jewish majority in historic Palestine, possibly resulting in another Nakba.
For Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the one-state solution is one in which there is no place for an Israeli state — and their brand of Islamism would hardly leave room for a tolerant state for either Israelis or Palestinians.
The third version of a one-state solution is one of equal rights for all its citizens, Israelis and Palestinians alike. Nevertheless, as much as this is, on the face of it, a commendable vision of both communities putting behind them many decades of conflict and bloodshed and finding a way to peacefully coexist under one system of governance and one constitution, sharing a sentiment of a common future and destiny, it is no more than pleasant fantasy. There is no modality for such a rapid transformation and past experiences, such as those of Yugoslavia, Cyprus and even Czechoslovakia, have ended in separation, sometimes accompanied by bloodshed.
The conference must see itself as possibly a last-chance saloon for advancing the cause of the two-state solution.
Yossi Mekelberg
In order for these ideas, which range between inevitable disaster and the utopian, to be prevented from taking hold of the Israeli-Palestinian discourse, the conference in New York must see itself as possibly a last-chance saloon for advancing the cause of the two-state solution. Hence, it must take concrete measures to initiate a peace process by setting a tight timeline and milestones on the way to establishing an independent Palestinian state along the approximate lines of the 1967 borders.
If such a framework is introduced — with incentives for both sides to adhere to it and severe consequences if they do not — there is a good chance for a new momentum toward peace to emerge out of this international gathering.
Moreover, if, by the time the delegates of the conference convene, a new ceasefire deal is not concluded, the first message from the conference must be a demand from the UN Security Council to pass a resolution to this effect. It must be one that will also see the release of the hostages and allow unlimited humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, as a first step toward the reconstruction of the Strip and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian people and their society, along a path toward a comprehensive peace agreement.
It is true that the main responsibility for resolving the conflict still rests with the two parties themselves. And it was a previous US secretary of state who said, following the collapse of his peace initiative in 2014, that 'the United States cannot want peace more than the parties to the conflict.' Much water has flowed down the Jordan river since then, but the sentiment is still correct. Yet, collectively, the international community has the ability to use its levers of power to make both sides understand that it is in their interest to bring about peace — and, should either side deliberately derail the peace process, to make them accountable.
This French-Saudi initiative to convene a conference on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could not be timelier, despite and maybe because it is taking place at the lowest and most volatile and tragic point in relations between the two main antagonists. This should serve as enough of an impetus not to fail again, as the price of failure, playing out on our screens every single day, is intolerable for those who live with it and unforgivable for those who do not stop it.