Palestine’s destiny

Many observers have long said that other regional issues cannot be resolved before the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the wake of recent developments they appear to be right. During the period in which we thought that the issue was between only the Israelis and the Palestinians and that Yasser Arafat was the unique representative of the Palestinian people, the way out was manifest: the establishment of two independent states living side by side. In the Cold War environment the Palestinians were considered Marxists and were eventually supported by the Soviet Union. On the other hand Israel was always seen as pro-American. The balance of power between these two superpowers has helped to explain the local situation. The historic presence of European states in the region and their new policies, regional people’s diverging claims and the character of the regimes in Israel and in Palestine were not taken into consideration. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was considered chronic but local, even when armed confrontations occurred. Alternative opinions among the Palestinian diaspora, different Palestinian identities or diverse tendencies of the Israeli citizens were never seen as variables. This state of affairs has helped to reinforce the presence of the artificial states and virtual borders established by the colonial powers with the collaboration of local leaders.

Today the issue is about two Palestines, Israel, Jordan and Iraq. Palestinians are fighting each other over the designation of the future state’s regime and leaders. They don’t agree on the position to be adopted against Israel either. This disagreement is the result of the restructuring of Fatah, which has lost its financial credibility. Palestine has sunk deeper into crisis and Palestinians now have two different political authorities. In Gaza, Hamas is the only power and it hopes to get Egyptian support. But the latter cannot show this without generating an Israeli reaction. In the West Bank Fatah remains in power and it is pursuing relations with the West and with Israel. They are both Palestinian, both aggressive, both authoritarian, but one has Islamic and the other has secular references. Neither the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank is big enough to constitute a state on its own. Besides we remain unsure about the Palestinian people’s will to possess two states at the same time. The current situation is the best option for Israel and the worst for Jordan.

There are many questions about the reason for the existence of two separate administrations on either side of the Jordan River, as their inhabitants are similar. As the West Bank is too tiny to become a state, a Palestinian-Jordanian Federation appears in the horizon. The debate over this question is very arduous because of the uncertainties about Iraq’s future. Jordan is a neighbor of Iraq and if Iraq ceases to exist, what the Sunnis will become? Wouldn’t they join this federation? Obviously that means an overall modification of the Middle East maps. Border changes could bring new bloodshed; the people in Gaza could be isolated and externalized; Israel could find itself in a new existential war or a new civil war could start among Palestinians.