The Middle East conflict, unbroken for more than 30 years, appears to set the Arab states – and behind them the Palestinian people – against the State of Israel. The Arab states appear motivated above all by the desire to acquire sufficient political and economic autonomy to become worthy partners in the world capital system from which they cannot envisage a divorce. In their pursuit of this objective, they constitute, according to Zionist fears, a ‘deadly’ peril to Israel
I would like to propose a new approach to the Middle East conflict. I support a two-state solution, but we are far from there. The Annapolis negotiations are dead, as I predicted, and a de facto one state is the current reality on the ground. Israel rules all mandatory Palestine from Jordan to the Mediterranean. There is one regime. This is not a viable option for the future. But it is today’s reality.
Of course, a two-state solution is necessary for Palestinian self-determination. The fact that Abbas is weak and that Hamas runs Gaza are problems. But the main obstacle to a two-state peace is the de facto, Israeli, one-state. The current arrangement is not democratic, and in ten years, the Jews will be the minority, according to reliable projections. Still, the way to two states will be long and difficult. How do we get there?
Since 2000, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has shifted dramatically. We cannot just resume from where the sides left off negotiations, after the Camp David talks in 2000 and the Taba talks in January 2001, and continue toward a two-state solution. The main challenge today is not Abbas and the corruption of Fatah, or Hamas. It is the problem of undoing the de facto one-state that Israel has established since 2000 and the 2002 “Defensive Shield” Operation that brought about Israel’s re-occupation of the West Bank.