Palestine

At the (rejuvenated) New Republic, Ben Birnbaum has a comprehensive and comprehensively-depressing survey of the last-gasp prospects for a two-state solution to the Middle East 'peace process'. If the two-state solution (TSS) is not yet on life-support it is hardly a picture of health. The prognosis is not good and time is running out. According to Birnbaum, Mahmoud Abbas and Bibi Netanyahu are, in their different ways, the last remaining men who could make it work. Yet neither man, as he also demonstrates, has much room for manoeuver.

Today's Israeli election does not, it is fair to say, take place in at a moment of supreme hope in the Middle East. Quite the contrary. This is an election whose result seems liable to depress most foreign observers. Bibi Netanyahu is no-one's idea of a moderate but the fact remains that, presuming he is returned for a third term as Prime Minister, he may be one of the more left-wing members of the new Israeli government. Indeed, Netanyahu is liable to be one of the more liberal members returned on the Likud list. Daniel Levy has a very useful primer on the dispiriting 'facts on the ground'. As Levy says: The next coalition will likely find it even harder to pretend to the world that a 2009 Netanyahu speech in which the phrase "two states" was uttered is a genuine policy commitment.

When did the dream of a two-state solution die? When it became clear that there are already two Palestinian states – the Hamas-run Gaza and the Palestinian Authority-governed West Bank? Or when the extremists of Hamas fired thousands of missiles into Israeli cities? Or last week when the ‘moderates’ of Fatah once again refused Israeli offers to go to the negotiating table and instead moved to circumvent their only negotiating partner via a diplomatic coup at the UN? No, in the eyes of portions of the UK government as well as the international community, the two-state solution is threatened not by these consistent, physically and diplomatically violent moves; but by everybody’s favourite subject: Israeli settlement building.

If anybody still wonders why there has not been a two-state solution long ago to the most famous – albeit least bloody – Middle East conflict, tonight’s UN speech by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is a good learning-curve. Abbas says that his act of unilateralism is the ‘last chance to save the two state solution.’ But of course what he means is that he thinks it is the last chance to save Mahmoud Abbas. For despite his talk of ‘the Palestinians’, ‘the Palestinian people’ and the ‘Palestinian state’ no such monolithic entities exist. There are already at least two major Palestinian entities, the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, and Gaza which is governed – after a fashion – by Hamas.

The latest offensive between Israel and Hamas may only just have begun. But already a set of the usual lies have entered the British coverage. Let me pose a few questions to the people who are propagating them. 1) Why are Hamas firing into undisputed Israeli territory? The territory that Hamas are firing rockets into is not disputed territory. They are firing into Israel proper – that is, into land which absolutely everyone except for Israel’s annihilationist enemies recognises is the land of Israel. Is this Hamas’s way of calling for a two-state solution? Is it their way of trying to persuade Israel to sit down with Hamas’s enemies in the PA? Of course not.

The papers and media are full of the news that Israel has killed a Hamas leader in the Gaza. Why did this happen? Where did it come from? Is it not yet another example of the blood-thirsty Zionists doing their worst? If you read most of the British media that may well be what you think. After all there has been barely any previous mention in the British papers of the massive escalation in rocket fire into Israel in the last month or the even swifter escalation this week. Certainly no British paper or broadcaster has come close to giving these attacks the front-page publicity they grant to Israel’s response today. Nobody much bothered to report that in October alone, 116 rockets and 55 mortar shells were launched against Israel in 92 separate attacks.

The journalist Tom Gross notes a story that you may have missed.  One hundred and twenty families in Gaza have lost their homes. 'Ma’an and other Palestinian news agencies report that the Hamas government in Gaza has renewed its policy of demolishing the homes of Palestinian families in order to seize land for government use. 120 families are to lose their homes in the latest round of demolitions – a far greater number than the number of illegally built Palestinian homes Israel has demolished in recent years – and unlike Israeli authorities, Hamas doesn’t even claim these homes were built illegally or with dangerous structures. Yet western media and human rights groups have been virtually silent about these destructions of Palestinian homes by Hamas.

While the Palestinian bid for membership at the United Nations moved closer to rejection, it turned out that Palestine has a veto over which UN agencies the United States funds. For after Palestine gained admission to UNESCO, the US administration followed through on its threats and cut the organisation's funding. As UNESCO is based on assessed contributions from member-states, others cannot make up the short-fall. The Palestinian Authority is now considering making applications to the WHO, WIPO and the International Telecommunications Union – technocratic bodies that actually play a large in role. For example, the WHO is crucial for dealing with global pandemics like SARS and Swine Flue.

There are many questions arising from the prisoner swap between Israel and Hamas, not least whether it opens the door to a more lasting deal in future. But one question that deserves more attention than it will get, and ought to concern European policymakers, is where international aid is going. Take this little snippet from Reuters: "Palestinians freed by Israel in a trade for soldier Gilad Shalit took their morning exercise on Wednesday around a luxury swimming pool overlooking the Mediterranean, instead of circling the prison yard as they have done for long years inside. There was none of the usual breakfast-room free-for-all at Gaza's 4-star Al-Mashtal beach front hotel.

It's difficult for the outside world to understand the huge significance that Gilad Shalit's release, this morning, has for Israel. A soldier captured by Hamas five years ago, he has become a huge cause célèbre — to the extent that black cabs in London were even commissioned with his picture on it. Books that he wrote aged 11 were printed and bought in their thousands by Israelis. He was wanted back so badly that Israel has agreed to release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, among them hardcore terrorists. Events stemming from the Arab Spring have made both sides eager to do a deal, which experts say might contribute — even if in a tiny way — towards that ever-elusive peace settlement.

The halls of the UN are packed with presidents and foreign ministers. But for all the thousands of subjects under discussion, this year's General Assembly will be remembered for one issue only: the Palestinian statehood application. Mahmoud Abbas has made clear he wants to proceed, despite the reality of a US veto. In the end, it may not come down a showdown. If an application is made to the UN Security Council, the issue will likely go to a sub-committee of the full UNSC and take quite some time before it comes to a vote, whatever the Palestinians may want. That is why the US prefers the option to a vote in the General Assembly, which would probably take place and pass immediately.

As Daniel wrote this morning, the Middle East peace process has returned to the headlines. Palestinian President Abbas has called for Palestine to be granted full membership of the United Nations, adding that the Palestinians had “legitimate right” to full membership. Abbas added that he remained committed to working with Israel, but said that negotiations had reached “an impasse, a dead end due to the stubborn policies of the Israeli Government that reject commitment to reference of negotiations based on international legitimacy.” This announcement would appear to have made Britain’s diplomatic position no less uncertain. Just as before, Britain’s position will depend on the precise wording of the resolution.