Israel is accelerating its effort to “enshrine” its annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Some see this effort as part of a gradual process toward the formalization of full annexation following the decision taken by the mini-cabinet on February 8. The decision announced, or effectively gave the green light for changing the status of what the authorities call “public land” in the West Bank into state land.
Whatever the legal characterization the Israeli government seeks to give to the occupied West Bank, in principle it remains illegal and illegitimate per international law. It violates the principles, stipulation, and relevant resolutions of the United Nations. This land is occupied territory, regardless of the occupying power’s attempts to reframe the issue as a “property dispute.”
It is worth recalling that the development should come as no surprise in light of the strategic and religious ideology of Israel, which has been reiterated daily in statements, declarations, and actions of its top brass, that all clearly reflect a pursuit of “Greater Israel.”
One must also point to the repeated statements and actions on the ground that encourage, facilitate, and thus accelerate settlement expansion in the West Bank, to accelerate demographic change. Fifty-two new settlements have been established in the past year. Restrictions on land purchase were lifted following the repeal of an old law that had explicitly prohibited them. The occupation authorities are also expanding by gnawing at the land, thereby extending into areas that fall under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction under the Oslo Accords.
What is also underway is a process of “geographic strangulation” of the Palestinian population on their own land, alongside economic and water strangulation. The objective, of course, is to create facts on the ground that push the inhabitants of the West Bank toward displacement in order to tip the demographic balance in the state of “Greater Israel,” while Gaza is treated as a security problem for Israel and dealt with from that perspective.
The policy is to escalate the blockade along the expanding “yellow line,” which could eventually become de facto borders imposed by Israel, coupled with the threat of resuming hostilities if Hamas is not dealt with on Israeli terms. That is, Israel is actively seeking to accelerate the “transfer” of the West Bank’s population, raising serious and grave concerns in Jordan.
Israel has thus moved from a policy of open rejection of a Palestinian state - effectively rejecting the two-state solution and all diplomatic initiatives in that direction - to implementation on the ground. While such practices had begun before, they were not pursued with this intensity. As noted, the goal is consolidating apartheid under the banner of realizing “Greater Israel” modeled on the previous regime in South Africa. That system was founded on the split of areas - the Bantustans - granted special administrative status with only “municipal” authority and functions. This paves the way for relegating Palestinians into “second-class citizens” in a West Bank that lies within “Greater Israel.”
In light of these dangerous developments, not only because of their current impact but also for their future repercussions, does it suffice to continue to appeal, condemn, and warn? Has the time not come, despite the obstacles, to formulate an effective initiative bringing together the relevant Arab and international parties, especially those engaged in the peace process, to launch and activate a diplomatic track for a settlement based on the two-state solution?
Such a diplomatic initiative would entail pressure, facing many obstacles, of course, but it is not an impossible task once the grave implications become clear, including the tensions and conflicts likely to erupt regionally, if this continues. These tensions and conflicts can also easily be exploited within the framework of the broader regional struggles of others.
Breaking the foundations of the two-state solution does not mean an alternative could provide stability. If this state of affairs persists, it will amount to investing in further conflicts, punctuated by fragile and intermittent periods of stability, even if under different labels.
The region stands before two choices: the two-state solution, whose realization grows more difficult by the day yet remains the only “realistic” solution, and the “Greater Israel” solution, which, in practical terms, means saying farewell to peace, come what may – if we do not, that is, choose to live in a world of illusions and dreams.
