The US and Israel are dangling the Palestinian state like a carrot. But, warns Hassan Nafaa*, it may just be part of a charade When US President George W Bush presented, almost a year ago, his vision for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through having two states, equal in rights and obligations, living side by side in peace and mutual respect, many were pleased. Their optimism was based on two main reasons. First, the step represented a major change in US policy and the way the US president views the conflict in this region. At the outset of his presidency, Bush had accused the Palestinian Authority of foiling US attempts to resolve the conflict in the final months of the Clinton administration. The Palestinians, Bush said, squandered a golden opportunity for peace, jeopardised the US reputation as a power broker -- something he said they should not be allowed to do again. Sharon saw in Bush's remarks the green light he needed for unilateral action towards the Palestinians. The Israeli prime minister concluded that he could do whatever he wanted, so long as he stopped short of causing irreparable damage to US interests in the Arab world. Accordingly, Sharon sent troops to reoccupy land from which Israel had withdrawn under the Oslo accords, destroyed Palestinian infrastructure, and even laid siege to Yasser Arafat's headquarters. So when President Bush went on record with a US vision for a two-state solution, and seemed determined to resuscitate the US role in resolving the conflict, many took this as a sign that US policy had undergone a radical change and was heading in the right direction. Second, throughout the history of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, not once had a US president spoken in such unequivocal terms of an "independent Palestinian state". Optimists believed that the change was the result of a long process of political maturation that brought the US to understand, particularly after the 11 September, that the time for a lasting solution and a historic reconciliation had come. Pessimists, myself included, saw -- and still see -- things differently. Any talk about an "independent Palestinian state", although theoretically encouraged, is bound to remain ineffective unless it is linked to a clear US vision concerning the borders and legal configuration of such a state. The quarrel between Israel and the Palestinians is not about the existence of a Palestinian state, but the borders and powers that state would have. The Palestinians want a true state within known and recognised borders, with geographical continuity and the powers international law accords to states. They want a state with East Jerusalem as its capital and the 1967 lines as its borders. Sharon, meanwhile, wants to create a Palestinian state covering only 42 per cent of the 1967 areas and is geographically fragmented, surrounded by settlements in every direction. And he wants Israel to control the crossing points, borders, airspace, and even its water resources. As far as Sharon is concerned, the primary function of such a state would be to protect Israel's security. Having said that, the only way of gauging the change -- if any -- in the US position would be to ascertain where the US stands on the powers and borders of a future Palestinian state. In particular, is the US position closer to the Israeli or Palestinian one? Again, the creation of the Palestinian state is not in dispute, not even inside Israel. Any substantive change in the US position on the Palestinian issue should involve credible US pressure on Israel. Either that, or the Zionist thinking should change to an extent allowing a historic compromise to take place. Nothing indicates that change of this sort was underway when the US president presented his vision for the region. On the contrary, US-Israeli relations were at a high point. The extreme right in both countries, having secured its grip on power, was entertaining schemes for regional and global domination that were not free from racist undertones. In both the US and Israel, politicians blithely contemplated plans for military action, using the "war against terror" as a convenient alibi. Sharon succeeded in convincing Bush that the terror that struck at the heart of the US in September 2001 was of the same sort that had threatened Israel since its creation. The US was in no mood to apply pressure on Israel. Actually, the two countries were never before in such ideological and strategic harmony. In Israel, leftist and anti-war activists were losing ground, and the Zionist vision was in no way heading towards a historic reconciliation. Right from the start, I have maintained that the US vision of the Palestinian state was nothing but a joint US-Israeli attempt to manage, not resolve, the conflict in the region. The US is only rewording Resolution 242 without introducing any substantive changes. Nothing that has happened since President Bush visited the region and presented the roadmap has changed my mind. Satisfied with their superficial, legalistic reading of the roadmap, the optimists have chosen to focus on positive elements they believe may foster progress towards a solution. The pessimists, myself included, based their political assessment of that document on the history of the US-Israeli handling of Resolution 242, and -- as a result -- saw in it a trap set for the Palestinians and Arabs. The road towards a settlement, I am sad to say, is still long and winding, and splattered with blood and tears. The US and Israel are using the roadmap as a tool to dismantle Hamas and Jihad, disregarding the possibility that its attempts could trigger a Palestinian civil war. Interestingly, the US and Israel are dangling the Palestinian state as though it were a carrot -- which became all the more clear in the aftermath of the latest martyrdom operation in Jerusalem. Their rhetoric portrays the Palestinian state as the "reward" to be given to that Palestinian knight who slays the Hamas and Jihad dragon. The knight is being promised the state, as though it were the hand of a fair maiden in marriage. But -- and here's the good part -- he is not allowed a glimpse of his future bride. Perhaps the bride is not worth the trouble, and perhaps she will be switched at the last moment with a crippled, hideous one. Still, the knight is not given the satisfaction of a glimpse into his future -- not before he undertakes his lethal mission. Israel is promising Abu Mazen a state. But first, the Palestinian prime minister will have to arrest all Hamas and Jihad members, confiscate their weapons, and eradicate every trace of their former existence. Whenever Abu Mazen asks the US for guarantees about the Palestinian state, he is told that this is something that future negotiations will take care of, and that the Palestinians should keep an open mind for the time being. In a nutshell, Abu Mazen has been asked to start a civil war and destroy half of his people just for the sake of talks with no clear outcome. No one knows whether the talks would result in the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, or the state envisioned by Sharon. The latter is a geographically disconnected entity on 42 per cent of the 1967 land, and has as its main function protecting greater Israel. This is scandalous, to say the least. The current talks involving the so-called roadmap will not, in my opinion, end the current cycle of violence. If anything, they may take the region down the road to further conspiracies and wars. This, I believe, is the time to take a courageous step and end all current contacts with Israel and the United States, until the latter declares in unambiguous terms that it accepts the international legal interpretation of Resolution 242, an interpretation that would force Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders. Israel and the US should acknowledge that all land captured since 5 June 1967 is occupied land, not disputed territory, and -- as such -- not subject to negotiations. The only matters subject to negotiations are the arrangements for mutual security and Israeli-Arab relations in the post-settlement era. Only when the United States and Israel make such a commitment will we have the right to call on Hamas and Jihad to disarm, turn into political parties, take part in elections, and become part of a true Palestinian state. A US-Israeli refusal to meet such a demand would confirm the suspicion that the US-Israeli alliance is only interested in a settlement that would redraw the map of the region, turn the Arabs into warring factions, make Israel the region's top honcho, and further US hegemony. If so, the proposed roadmap would usher in more wars and bloody conflicts in the region, not security and stability. With Israel having trouble in Palestine and the US in Iraq, both countries are likely to seek diversion elsewhere. The next shots fired in anger may ring out in Iran, but the real target will remain Hamas, Jihad, and Hizbullah. Israeli and US politicians are convinced that there will be no settlement in the region before Hamas, Jihad, and Hizbullah are terminated. This is enough motive for the US and Israel to seek to change the regimes supporting these groups -- Iran and Syria -- through military action if necessary. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
