I just and just managed to express my disgust about the recent transformation of Nils Torvalds into an obedient follower of the US political line before (on Sö 27.07.2014) Yrsa Grüne managed to upset my physical well-being with a ledare in Hbl which was titled “I dimridåernas landskap”.
The message of the ledare was given in the two sentences “Det verkar uppenbart att Israel inte längre vill ha en tvåstatslösning. Då blir det helt enkelt omöjligt.” And she does not stand alone with such an opinion. Also Nils Torvalds “sade … att man borde spola hela tvåstatsidén” (which was also mentioned by him in the piece which caused my first attack of disgust).
Jaha, and how then? The occupation of the West Bank with the permanent and systematic trakasseri of the Palestinians there should simply go on, same as the blockade of Gaza (with Israel drawing up long lists which, e.g., spices for cooking are not allowed to enter the area)? Well, seemingly anyway according to Nils Torvalds and Yrsa Grüne. And it is after all only Palestinians who are supposed to put up with these conditions …
Well yes, we can agree that Israel does not want a Palestinian state (any attentive reader of the papers knows that since years), but to take that as THE reason why one should simply accept things as they are now – and this without even one mentioning of the USA in the whole ledare, nor any own suggestion what should/could be done now, that demands a simply neurotic degree of submission to the pro-US (and seemingly also pro-Israel) line which is at the moment prevailing in the SFP.
If somebody less neurotic would switch her/his head on about the situation, what could possibly be done? The situation seems to be that Israel does not want a Palestinian state, and that the Palestinian government can, politically, not afford to accept conditions which could possibly make the idea still acceptable to any present or future Israeli government. Thus, one has to “help” the involved governments to develop a taste for a solution – i.e. PRESSURE is called for. Up to now Israel can rely that it will be supported in ANYthing by ANY US government (and never mind Obama’s Peace Nobel Prize …) – which means that the Israeli government has no reason whatsoever why it should agree to a Palestinian state.
Thus, it is obvious that the USA (and the EU) should withhold the present support for Israel plus threaten a diplomatic and economical boycott, i.e. they should IMPOSE a settlement. Israel will of course complain loudly (and perhaps even Palestine), but there is hope that the citizens of both states could learn to appreciate a state of peace so well that they will gradually develop some motivation to keep up the imposed state of affairs on their own account.
And what could the imposed state of affairs be? Well, I am afraid that the wall between Israel proper and the West Bank will have to remain (there is too much motivation around for cross-border incidents). But Palestine could be compensated for the land which Israel stole by the wall, e.g. by a corridor between the West Bank and Gaza (where traffic lanes which are important for Israel have to be crossed, the Palestinian lines could go in a tunnel) – this way Palestine could get a harbour in the Mediterranian plus access to a Gaza airport. The same corridor could also serve as a land connection to unite the whole Islamic World (which is at the moment cut in two by Israel). A tunnel could also secure Palestinian access to East Jerusalem. Of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank the smaller ones would have to be evacuated, while a few larger ones could perhaps remain, though cut off from the area around (so that devout Zionists can perhaps spend their retirement on soil which they consider sacred, but are hindered from doing damage to their Palestinian neighbours) and connected to Israel by roads which are separated from Palestinian territory (which means that one party in this will have to use tunnels at least occasionally).
Previous agreements about the distribution of the Jordan’s water should be scrapped and decided anew by a panel of (agricultural and similar) experts. – One wants, after all, two viable states …
Israel will of couse be allowed to keep its “Iron Dome” system as a defence against possible rockets from Gaza, but the retaliation against such rockets should perhaps begin with charging the Palestinian state for the expenses for the rockets which are being used up in the protection of Israel against the Hamas rockets.
This imposed state of affairs has of course to be guaranteed by UN troops (who should be equipped with, among others, large numbers of “drönare” for constant, close supervision of the whole area). One question is of course from where to get troops who can be trusted to be sufficiently impartial (and at the same time willing and able to shoot – which will surely be necessary on occasion). US and British troops are out of the question, same as German or Arabic troops, so that one may have to consider Scandinavian troops (considering the attitude of the present Scandinavian governments even they are doubtful, but, having some experience with peace keeping in the area, they may be useful as instructors) and as the bulk of the troops some from the Far East, i.e. Japanese/Korean/Chinese troops.
Finally, one important job of the UN troops would be (a little bit different from Western ideas concerning “religious freedom”) to keep some check on the preachers in the area and eliminate those who might be preaching too loudly against the imposed peace – not by shooting them but by locking them up in something like comfortable psychiatric, closed care (where they would be allowed to get on each other’s nerves, but not cause political trouble). – The control of preachers is an old Chinese tradition which I at least think indeed wise. That people should be provided with the Koran in a language which they understand well could also be helpful (the Koran’s main message is one of moderation, which should be all to the good …).
So far some suggestions which could/should have come from those who were so easily agreeing that Israel does not want a Palestinian state and taking that as a sufficient reason why there should not be one – but well, what can one expect from representatives of a SFP line … . Anyway I do hope that the above suggestions could give rise to some further ideas, at least in the heads of less prejudiced people.