Mid-East violence underscores need for Two-State solution
The current spurt in the spiral of violence in the Middle East could easily lead the concerned observer to conclude fatalistically that the bloody conflict is not at all amenable to a political solution. Yet, all stakeholders to the Middle East problem need to inquire as to whether the exploration of all peaceful options has arrived at an insurmountable dead-end.
Increasing fatalities in the vicious circle of violence necessitate this crucial query, besides other weighty considerations. The international community, one believes, needs to take fresh stock of the Middle East situation and renew efforts to work out a negotiated solution to the wasting conflict.
It should come as a matter of comfort that scores of countries today support what has come to be known as the ‘Two-State solution’ to the Middle East imbroglio. That is, the creation in the contested territories of two states, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, that would, hopefully, peacefully co-exist. No solution could be more equitable or fair, since the communities concerned have been dispossessed. A study of the history of these principal groups would reveal as much.
Sri Lanka has traditionally staunchly defended the cause of Palestinian statehood and quite rightly. Such a policy position is grounded in the belief that the Palestinian people have been dispossessed over the past decades and there is no doubting the historical record on this score. But what is equally true is that the Israelis too have not possessed a ‘homeland’ in modern times.
Until the early decades of the last century the Israelis were, more or less, a displaced people. We wonder whether Sri Lankan governments over the years have come to realize this. Defending the Palestinian cause is the correct position to take but what needs equal emphasis is the ‘Two-State solution’ that has the potential to address the concerns of the contending parties equitably, provided it is worked out judiciously. Sri Lanka needs to defend the latter policy position more enthusiastically and visibly.
Sri Lanka could very well be ‘on the wrong side of history’ by not supporting the cause of a fair solution to the Middle East conflict, read the ‘Two-State solution’, with visible vigour and audibility. Over the years, more and more UN member states have granted diplomatic recognition to Israeli and are interacting with it on numerous legitimate planes.
As of December 2020, some 165 out of the 193 member states of the UN system had accorded diplomatic recognition to Israel. It is also of interest to note that by 2020, Israel had established diplomatic relations with four Arab League states. They are: Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan and Morocco.
It is no secret that Sri Lanka has been relating to Israel in a number of important areas of interest over the past few years. Israel proved most handy for Sri Lanka in the area of arms purchases during the Lankan state’s 30-year war with the separatist LTTE. Since then, Israel has been of immense help as a provider of employment for Sri Lankans in a number of spheres, besides supporting Sri Lanka in areas, such as, agricultural development and water management, to name just a couple of such forms of assistance. What, then, prevents Sri Lanka from advocating the ‘Two- State solution’ robustly in the forums of the world?
In fact, these times of stepped-up violence in the contested regions of the Middle East could be considered as putting the rest of the world on notice as well that it is lagging in the task of helping to work towards a negotiated solution to the conflict.
Needless to say, the US could play a major role in this peace undertaking because, being Israel’s most powerful ally in the international community, it could bring much pressure to bear on the Israeli government to see the merits of a political solution and convince it of the need to work consistently towards the realization of such a settlement.
However, to begin with, the US would need to impress on Israel that it would need to drastically curtail its settlement activities in the contested territories, since such expansionist projects are a storm centre in the conflict. Concrete measures would need to be taken by the US and other well-meaning members of the world community to render costly for Israel further settlement activities that tend to aggravate security-related fears of the Palestinian community.
Moreover, the overall objective of the peace initiative should be to eliminate the keenly felt security concerns of the major communities concerned. It ought to be plain to see that it is these nagging worries that are compelling the more militant sections among each community to view each other with fear and to resort to arms to resolve such anxieties.
This is a matter for the West as well as those sections of the international community who mean the Israelis and Palestinians well. Another ground-breaking peace initiative seems to be needed which would take off from where the Oslo peace process left off.
Essentially, such a peace enterprise should aim at establishing two neighbouring states that would feel secure in each other’s company. State boundaries would need to be neatly re-demarcated and considered inviolable by both states. Needless to say, this would prove a steep, uphill task but one that would need to be undertaken if a measure of peace is to be brought to the Middle East. It is a challenge for all well-meaning states in the current world order. Accordingly, all peace makers are required to stand up and be counted without further delay because the spiral of violence in the Middle East seems to be intensifying by the day.
Ideally, any future peace effort would need to be grounded on core democratic values. That is, any future peace package should be seen as meeting the just, democratic aspirations of the communities concerned. It goes without saying such an enterprise could only be advanced by the forces of democracy within the main social groups.
Unfortunately, the present Israeli government does not measure-up to all these requirements. But the current public unrest in Israel linked to preserving the independence of the country’s higher judiciary and connected issues, highlights the fact that pro-democracy forces in Israel are vibrant and strong. The durability of peace in the region would also depend on how effectively these forces of democracy are made party to it.
