by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen
[I]t is time to consider a new paradigm for resolving the Strip’s endemic predicament, and by extension the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Masked Palestinian militants from Islamic
Jihad run with homemade rockets on the outskirts of Gaza City for firing
into Israel, 2009
photo by Amir Farshad Ebrahami via Flickr CC
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 870, June 19, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Given
Gaza’s sharp deterioration over the past 25 years – first under the PA’s
rule (1994-2007), then under Hamas’s control – it is time to consider a
new paradigm for resolving the Strip’s endemic predicament, and by
extension the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That paradigm could entail a
Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and northern Sinai, from Rafah to
El-Arish, with the latter territory leased to the Palestinians on a
long-term basis.
When a computer gets stuck, it is usually
advisable to shut down and restart. In rethinking the strategic reality
produced by the Oslo Accords it may be worthwhile to adopt similar
approach: to trace the course of the process from its onset while
reexamining its underlying assumptions.
Since the British peacemaking attempts of the
1930s, it was taken for granted that the Arab-Jewish conflict problem
would be resolved within the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine. In line
with this thinking, the Peel Commission proposed in July 1937 to
partition the land west of the Jordan River into two separate entities: a
Jewish state, and an Arab state that would be united with Transjordan
(then ruled by Emir, later King, Abdullah of Mecca).
From then on, the two-state solution was
established as the predominant paradigm whereby the various Arab
territories and rival factions would be constituted into one Arab state
(for his part, Abdullah considered himself ruler of this entity on both
sides of the Jordan).
This was also the underlying premise of the Oslo
Accords. But after Israel’s final withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in the
summer of 2005 and Hamas’s takeover of the area, a new reality was
created. By controlling a defined stretch of territory and its
population and having all the trappings of military, administrative, and
political power, Hamas has turned the Gaza Strip into a de facto
state. The ensuing disconnect between the Ramallah-based Palestinian
Authority (PA) and the Hamas government in Gaza has created an
ever-widening fissure in the two-state paradigm as the Palestinians have
split into two de facto state entities.
It will never be fully known where Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon was headed in the summer of 2005, or what his long-term
strategic expectations of the Gaza unilateral disengagement were. But
that move produced a sea change that fundamentally transformed the
strategic reality by creating a complete spatial separation from Israel
enforced by a strident security regime, in stark contrast to the hybrid
system of partial separation and coexistence that prevails in the West
Bank.
On the one hand, the Jewish and Palestinian populations (especially the Palestinians living in Areas A and B, which are a de facto
state) live in separate spaces, while on the other, there is
multifaceted coexistence and collaboration in the security and economic
spheres, among others. Over 100,000 Palestinians work daily in Israel,
in addition to the tens of thousands working in Jewish communities and
factories in the West Bank. A critical examination of the fundamental
differences between these two paradigms can perhaps provide a key to
addressing the difficult problem of the Gaza Strip.
Thinking spatially outside the box: connecting Gaza to northern Sinai
Gaza’s total separation from the West Bank has
created a new opportunity for Israel, the Palestinians, and the
international community to rethink the Oslo concept about regulating the
narrow space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Since the completion of Israel’s withdrawal from
the West Bank’s populated areas (A and B) in January 1996, the PA’s
governing centers have been based in Ramallah and focused on
administering the affairs of those territories, with the Gaza Strip
reduced to a peripheral role. Yet notwithstanding the disconnect between
Ramallah and Gaza, the international community continues to view the PA
as the address for handling Gaza’s affairs, ignoring altogether the
Hamas government formed in the wake of the organization’s sweeping
victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections.
Reflecting the staying power of a hegemonic
paradigm even when the facts on the ground no longer correspond to its
underlying assumptions, this outlook preserves the two basic premises of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the necessity for two states within
the boundaries of the former Mandatory Palestine; and the existence of
only one Palestinian entity.
Accepting that something fundamental has changed
and that there are effectively two separate Palestinian entities, it is
time to consider an alternative paradigm. Neither the PA nor Mahmoud
Abbas will ever solve the problems of Gaza. In seeking to resolve the
Strip’s endemic predicament, Israel and the international community must
shift the center of gravity from Ramallah to Gaza itself.
Since the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement of
1979, which left Gaza under Israel’s control, the Strip has become
dependent on Israel in all walks of life, and its available space for
growth and development has been constrained by Israel to the north and
east and Egypt to the west. Under these circumstances, and given Gaza’s
sharp deterioration over the past 25 years – first under the PA’s rule
(1994-2007), then under Hamas’s control – it is time to consider a new
paradigm for resolving the Strip’s problems, and by extension the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict: a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and
northern Sinai, from Rafah to El-Arish, with the latter territory leased
to the Palestinians on a long-term basis.
In practice, the hybrid West Bank paradigm,
comprising extensive and multifaceted economic and security Israel-PA
ties, could serve as a model for a similar relationship between the
Hamas state in Gaza and Egypt. The open space between Rafah and
El-Arish, which is in the hands of Egypt, can offer the Strip the
economic and infrastructure living space it needs.
Such a sea change would of course be entirely
dependent on the consent of Egypt, which may not be eager to relinquish
even a tiny part of its sovereign territory. Yet it is possible to find
creative means that do not necessarily require concessions over
sovereignty and that will grant Egypt substantial benefits (via massive
international aid) that may ease its own economic plight. Likewise,
Hamas can hardly be expected to abandon its dream of a state from the
Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea; but with the internationally
supported expansion of the Gaza state into northern Sinai, and the
attendant economic revival it is likely to produce, some positive
dynamics within the Palestinian population may well evolve.
Open spaces often present unrealized
opportunities. Sinai is an opportunity awaiting a comprehensive
initiative for the benefit of all the peoples of the region.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family
Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/three-state-solution/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment