George Bush and Tony Blair are talking again about a two‐state solution for the Middle East Conflict. And some say that a two‐state solution is the only option.
But, without knowing what these two states are, “a two‐state solution” is not an option, but a meaningless slogan.
We all know what the “first state” is. — It is the State of Israel.
But what is the “second state”?
At present the “second state” is the Gaza open‐air prison, a cluster of open‐air prisons in the West Bank separated by the “first state” settlements and access roads, some refugee camps around the Arab World, and the Palestinian Diaspora in the rest of the world.
But the existence of such second state does not solve the problem. The conflict has been raging for over 50 years, and still no solution in sight.
So, may be some other “second state” can produce a two‐state solution?
What could be such other second state?
The United States of America?
Give all the Palestinians US citizenship and 1,000,000 USD each as compensation for the crimes committed against them, on condition that they re‐settle in the USA. And the need for a “two‐state solution” will disappear. —The conflict will be resolved.
But would it not be cheaper to give a few millions USD to Mahmud Abbbas, so that his Fatah could crack down on the “extremists” and make them accept whatever the Israelis will want to impose upon them? — This is the latest Bush‐Blair Plan for the Middle East.
Will it work?
But how did Mahmud Abbas gain his authority over Fatah?
He replaced Yasser Arafat.
And how did Yasser Arafat gain his authority over Fatah?
He created it.
But what is Fatah?
FaTaH stands for Harakatu Tahriri Falastin spelled backwards. And it means “Palestine Liberation Movement”.
And the original purpose of Fatah, as is clear from its name, was to liberate Palestine from the Israelis. And it is this purpose that had been the driving force behind Fatah until the present time.
Although Yasser Arafat had recognized “the Right of Israel to Exist” in his negotiations with the “International Community”, he was often accused by the Israelis of saying one thing to the “International Community” in English and another thing to the “Arab Street” in Arabic. But this was the only way he could retain his authority over his followers, because for his followers Fatah still meant what its name implied, and they saw Yasser Arafat as their military leader in their war against Israel.
Had he chosen to say to the “Arab Street” in Arabic what he was saying to the “International Community” in English, he would have lost his authority, and would have had to rely for his personal protection on Israeli or American bodyguards.
Shortly before his death Yasser Arafat appeared on a balcony overlooking a square full of his supporters. They were chanting: “Arm us with machine guns! Ya, Abu Amar!” — For them he was their military leader up to moment of his death.
Mahmud Abbas replaced Yasser Arafat, because he was within the Fatah leadership from the very start and was still seen as Yasser Arafat's comrade‐in‐arms.
Now the Bush‐Blair camp want to use the rivalry between Fatah and Hamas to turn Mahmud Abbas into a tool to resolve the Middle East Conflict in accordance with their plan.
And the Bush‐Blair Plan is to force the Palestinians to accept whatever the Israelis want to impose on them.
Is such solution possible?
The solution that Mahmud Abbas is holding before his followers is the two‐state solution as per the Arab Peace Plan — which the Israelis will not accept, which Mahmud Abbas cannot impose on the Israelis, and which the Bush‐Blair camp will not impose on the Israelis either.
And this means that Mahmud Abbas will soon come to be seen by his supporters not as a Fatah leader seeking to achieve their military objectives by “peaceful diplomatic means”, but as an agent of the “International Community” (that is of Bush‐Blair‐Israel), and his support in the “Arab Street” will evaporate.
Where will his supporters go?
Some will join Hamas, others will form their own groups, or join some existing ones. Will it be “Al‐Qaida in the Levant”?
Bush and Blair have already proved themselves as day‐dreamers, notorious for achieving results opposite to those intended.
Remember the attempts by Tony Blair to persuade the Scots to vote Labour? The more speeches he made in Scotland, the more the Scots were leaving Labour and voting for the Scottish National Party. And when asked, “Why?”, their answer was: “Because of Tony Blair”.
And remember the Bush‐Blair dreams about a flower welcome in Baghdad?
They did succeed to remove Saddam Hussain and even to have him killed, but he was replaced with Al‐Qaida in Mesopotamia, more Americans dead than in the 9/11 (and still dying), billions of dollars down the drain, and Bush‐Blair popularity in their own countries at the rock bottom.
So may be US citizenship and 1,000,000 USD for each Palestinian as compensation for the crimes committed against them, on condition that they re‐settle in the USA will end up being cheaper than the Bush‐Blair schemes?
And, unlike the Bush‐Blair dreams and schemes, it will work.