[W]e will have a discussion among us, among the ministers, and I will present - I have already presented - a comprehensive approach. A comprehensive approach to what? I think that we have to stop talking about the “peace” process, and start talking more concretely about the “two-state solution” process. Because peace, it could be many different [kinds of] peace. What kind of peace are you talking about?So, let’s talk about what we want to do. What we want to do is to build a two-state solution, so let’s talk about it. The way you are naming it is important. So, from now on, I will not talk about the peace process, but about the two-state solution process. If we are serious about that, we have to study the underling [sic] causes that prevent this solution from being implemented. Certainly, Hamas is one of them - an important one - but there are others.This comprehensive approach has to be studied, and discussed. I know it is difficult. The 27 [Member States] have different approaches, but we have to work together with the Arab world. I know it is difficult, but it is our moral endeavour, our moral obligation to try to do our utmost to try to look for a solution.So, from now on, please talk about the “two-state solution” process.
Originally, the "two state solution" was assumed by much of the world as the only possible way to peace. For decades, the priority has not been peace, but two states, as if they are synonymous.
The "two state solution" based on the 1949 armistice lines had become a kind of religion, accepted as the only way forward. Nothing the Palestinians could do would shake that faith - Arafat's and later other Palestinian refusals that would bring exactly that solution, the intifadas, the suicide bomb attacks, the view by the vast majority of Palestinians that "two states" is a stepping stone towards a single Arab state, completely compatible with Yasir Arafat's "phased plan" to destroy Israel.
But until now at least there was some pretense that the "two state solution" would lead to peace.
Now, the EU's foreign policy leader is disconnecting the two-state religion from the main goal it was ostensibly meant to accomplish: peace. A Palestinian state is now an independent goal for the EU, and whether it will endanger Israelis .or lead to more October 7ths is utterly irrelevant.
In this worldview, Hamas is not the main obstacle to progress, but Israel. Because Israel still wants to ensure that its people aren't murdered on a daily basis by Jew-hating jihadists. If the Palestinians cannot possibly offer a permanent, real peace, then let's drop that demand and give them what they want on the way to their ultimate goal.
Did Israel's withdrawal from the internationally accepted Blue Line with Lebanon bring peace with Hezbollah? Did Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - giving the land to the responsible, moderate Palestinian Authority, not Hamas - bring peace? How did demilitarizing the Palestinian Authority work out?
If peace is the goal, these are uncomfortable questions for two-staters. If two states is the goal, then these questions become irrelevant. Jews want security? That's an obstacle to the two-state solution!
Perhaps more insidious is Borrel calling "two states" a "solution." It doesn't solve anything. It very possibly would make things worse. But he defines it as a "solution," and who doesn't want solution? This way the EU has a goal, and once it is achieved, they can wash their hands of the matter and say that the problem - now redefined itself as "lack of two states" - has been solved.
One there is a solution, any problems that result are disconnected from the EU's courageous role in creating two states.
Which makes this sound a lot like "final solution."
(h/t Irene)
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
