Moscow. October 13. INTERFAX.EN - Among the reasons for the latest and bloodiest clash between Israel and the militants of the Palestinian Gaza Strip, political scientists and politicians call the unresolved issue of the creation of a Palestinian state. Two states or one could be created when the UN decides on the withdrawal of the British from their mandated territory in the Middle East, how to geographically define a new division?
Our special correspondent Vyacheslav Terekhov talked about the history of this problem with a specialist in the political history of the Middle East, a researcher at the IMEMO Center for Middle Eastern Studies. Primakova RAS Lyudmila Samarskaya.
 |
| Lyudmila Samarskaya. |
| Source: IMEMO RAS |
A mistake or a deliberate action?
Corr.: Why, when the State of Israel was created, a second state - a Palestinian one - was not created on the mandated English territory in the Middle East? It would seem that if the historical territory of Palestine was divided, then two states should have arisen there. But this was not done. A mistake that the peoples of this region of the world are still paying for? Or a conscious decision to preserve a constantly smoldering conflict there?
Samarskaya: They really thought about the need to divide this territory into two states. This is evidenced by UN Resolution No. 181 of November 29, 1947, which clearly states the division of Palestine into two states - Jewish and Arab. But the problem was that the Jews accepted it and agreed with what they got, although they might have wanted more. But the Arabs did not, they fundamentally disagreed with the creation of a Jewish state. Their position was that the whole of Palestine should be Arab.
This is the reason for the first Arab-Israeli war: the Arab States tried to destroy Israel by force. It didn't work out. But the conflict has remained, as we can see, up to the present day. Time passed. Various compromises were proposed, agreements were concluded, and the Palestine Liberation Organization was established as a representative of the interests of the Palestinian people. The heads of the Israeli and PLO delegations were even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But that's where it all came to a standstill. The opponents of the peace process turned out to be stronger. And already from two sides.
That is why we now have the situation that has developed historically.
A Palestinian state? It's not that simple!
Corr.: Is the problem only in the creation of a Palestinian state? And if it is created now by the same UN decision, will everything work out?
Samarskaya: Let's put it this way, then one of the key causes of the conflict will really go away. But not everything is so simple. The question will arise, what kind of state will it be, how can it look geographically, how viable will it be, what kind of governance will there be, more precisely, which of the Palestinian forces will be in power?
On the one hand, this would solve the problem, but on the other hand, even if we are talking about the potential creation of a Palestinian state, we still have a lot of questions about what it could look like. The fact is that on the territory of historical Palestine there is the State of Israel and two Arab Palestinian territories that do not border each other - the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip. The first is run by the Palestinian National Authority, the second by the Hamas movement.
Correspondent: Not only do they not border on each other, but they also clearly conflict with each other. The Palestinian part located in the West Bank of the Jordan River is not involved in the conflict. Only Gaza militants are fighting.
Samara: In fact, yes. Although there are also clashes in the West Bank, but they are not comparable, of course, with what is happening in Gaza, although various groups, including terrorist ones, operate there. But so far, the Palestinians of this part are not joining the war on a large scale.
Israel is against the creation of two States in Palestine. Why?
Interviewer: Why does Israel not want there to be two states in Palestine?
Samarskaya: Because this is a territorial issue and a security issue. Israel now retains military control around the Gaza Strip, as well as in a significant part of the West Bank of the Jordan River. The Israeli leadership proceeds from security considerations and the idea that the creation of a State hostile to it there, in these territories, would be a colossal risk. In particular, because Israel actually has no strategic depth: this is a very small territory, so there are challenges, in general, from all sides. The point is that if it is not a hostile state towards Israel, then, in principle, this issue could be considered. On the other hand, the problem of settlements and the viability of the territories of a potential State arises again. And everything is very difficult with territories: Jewish settlements, outposts and transport routes disrupt the connectivity of the Palestinian part of the ZBRI (West Bank of the Jordan River - IF).
But Israel is also against a single state!
Corr.: Then let's approach this issue from the other side. Why does Israel not want to create a united state?
Samara: Then the Palestinians should be given equal rights with the Israelis. Israel will not do this, including because the inclusion of a huge number of Arab population in its composition will create a very serious demographic imbalance in the country. In general, he was always afraid of this. Based on these reasons, it is very difficult to imagine any positive scenarios for solving the problem of two or one state.
Then maybe we should return to the questions about borders?
Correspondent: When the world discusses how to get out of this situation, it is advised to return to the borders of 1967. This includes Russia's proposal. Israeli political scientists deny the possibility of implementing this proposal. They proceed from the fact that then there is a need to resettle more than half a million of their citizens who currently live in the territory after 1967. And secondly, East Jerusalem must go to the Palestinians! It resembles a variant of West Berlin inside the GDR, that is, we get out of one problem - do we get the second one?
Samarskaya: This is not the only problem, although I completely agree that these are also key issues, plus the factor of settlements in the West Bank is important. Let's put it this way: if we are talking about the 1967 border, it means that all settlements must be evacuated. But it is almost impossible to imagine it. Israel was already withdrawing from the Gaza Strip: then the unilateral disengagement was very painful for those who lived there, and for Israel as a whole. In addition, the West Bank of the Jordan River, or Judea and Samaria, as it is called in Israel, also has enormous symbolic significance for the nationalist-minded and religious population. Therefore, it is very difficult to imagine how any potential Israeli government will evacuate settlements. So it's probably unrealistic. And, of course, there remains the issue of control over Jerusalem.
Is it possible to resolve the issue by military force?
Correspondent: The Israeli army plans to launch a serious ground operation in order to completely destroy Hamas and thus solve the problem of Gaza. But will Israel be able to pass through the entire territory of Gaza without wild losses on both sides and without the international community and heads of state intervening? In addition, people who have left this territory for many generations to come will be eager to liberate it. Will everything go in circles again?
Samarskaya: Yes, I completely agree with you. If the operation is launched, and they are actively talking about it now, then it will really involve colossal losses and vague prospects. The question will still remain: what to do next with this territory? Even if we do not mention humanitarian considerations, it is simply technically impossible to expel such a volume of population (more than two million). That is, it is possible, but this creates enormous problems for those whose territories they fall into, who also do not need this problem. Egypt, in particular, demonstrates this.
Corr.: If they pass, for example, Gas, won't they have even more problems how to manage it?
Samarskaya: If they decide to come to Gaza and stay there, it will create a huge number of problems and partly return Israel to the situation before the disengagement in 2005. And he didn't come out of there by accident! Yes, the exit caused problems in the form of rocket attacks, in the form of Hamas coming to power. But he made this decision because this territory was a source of terrorist activity, and therefore a threat to security. Therefore, will Israel be ready to repeat this and what does it ultimately plan to do? This is a very, very big question, and there is probably no answer to it yet.
Is there a solution to the problem?
Corr.: And in general, there is an answer to the question of how this conflict will end, and does it have a solution at all?
Samarskaya: Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make predictions now, because the situation is largely unprecedented due to the nature of the Hamas attack on Israel. Of course, I would like to hope for a settlement of the conflict after the hostilities are over. But in what conditions it will be, in what position Israel will be, in which - Palestine, in which - specifically Gaza itself, it is very difficult to say now. Now it is difficult to predict even the course of the war, the potential duration, the nature. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to predict the end and what will happen after it, of course.
Perhaps the countries of the region will join the search for a solution
Correspondent: How did other states of the Middle East react to this war?
Samarskaya: Their positions differ. A significant part of the States condemned the violence and called for negotiations, agreements, and the cessation of hostilities. There were those who supported one of the parties, this is Iran, which clearly supported Palestine, Qatar also spoke in a similar spirit. Many others were more restrained, that is, someone like Saudi Arabia, of course, directly or indirectly blamed Israel for what happened, but at the same time the UAE also condemned the violence of the Gaza militants. In general, there is not much direct support for the actions of Hamas: there is a call for negotiations. The same Turkey, for example, also spoke in favor of dialogue.
Correspondent: I can't help but recall the famous statement of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, former head of Israel Shimon Peres (he was awarded for his desire to resolve the issue of relations between Israel and Palestine with the help of legal agreements). If there is no solution to the problem, perhaps it is not a problem, but a given that you should learn to live with.
I understand that the states of the region are already becoming not just objects of politics, but also subjects. Is it possible that they will take some initiative in solving this problem? And they will find the answer to the question of how to learn to live in peace?
Samarskaya: Yes, it is quite likely. At the very least, this would be the most realistic scenario for resolving the problem. In fact, it is the States of the region that are most interested in ensuring that the region is stable and non-conflict. The world is changing.
