Out of touch

---

The way Israel understands the idea of two states for two nations seems to diverge from what is commonly understood by that idea.

Recently, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman came up with a plan that would turn Gaza into the closest thing to a separate state. Meanwhile, former defence minister Moshe Arens was thinking up ways of annexing the West Bank permanently, while granting its inhabitants Israeli citizenship. On the surface, the two ideas seem to be heading in two different directions. But at heart they have one thing in common. Both aim to undermine the possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

Lieberman's initiative aims to divert international criticism of Israel over Gaza. It is devised specifically to stop the world from holding Israel responsible for Gaza by virtue of its being the occupying power.

Rabin tried it before; then Sharon did the same thing. They both wanted to end Israel's involvement in Gaza and thus pretend as if Israel was no longer an occupying power. But that wasn't to happen. Israel undertook a major "disengagement" operation in Gaza, and yet the international community continued to see it, rightly, as the occupying power there.

A few weeks ago, Lieberman invited six EU foreign ministers and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton to visit Gaza, thus reversing an Israeli ban on high-level visits to the Strip. What he wanted was to get the EU to finance three major strategic projects in Gaza: a power station, a desalination station, and a sewage treatment plant.

In return, he promised, Israel would not oppose any plan to reconstruct Gaza and would even refrain from intercepting ships coming to Gaza.

Should the EU accept those terms, Israel would ask it to send an international military force to the border crossings and supply commando troops to prevent the smuggling of weapons to Gaza. France would be asked to take charge of the force. Look at the fine print and you'll realise that what Lieberman is trying to do is to turn the Israeli occupation into an internationally managed occupation.

This second disengagement plan, as Lieberman calls it, is somewhat seen as part of preparations for an "interim state", a term that now seems to involve lasting separation of Palestinian areas.

According to Yediot Aharonot, Lieberman is fully aware of the profound political dimensions of his initiative. He wants to allow Hamas to improve conditions in the Strip and thus turn Gaza into an independent political region, one that is viable and self-sustaining.

Similar ideas have been proposed and rejected in the past. One was the annexation of Gaza by Egypt, an idea that was, knowingly or unknowingly, supported by some Palestinians. As expected, Hamas rejected the idea offhand, so did the Palestinian Authority.

Even German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle poured cold water on Lieberman's idea, while reiterating the EU commitment to the two-state solution. Most EU forums are likely to follow suit. The mood has changed in Europe, but Lieberman doesn't seem to notice.

While Lieberman was trying to sort out the Gaza debacle, another Israeli heavyweight was trying to sort out the West Bank, albeit in a totally different manner. Arens is now advocating a bi- national state for Jews and Arabs in Israel. The one thing Lieberman and Arens have in common is that no independent Palestinian state can come out of their musings.

In a recent article, Arens argues that it would be impractical to think that Jordan would take the West Bank. So the best solution, he says, is to apply Israeli laws to the West Bank and give full citizenship to the 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs who live there. Before this is done, Israel should fully integrate its Arab Israelis, now representing 20 per cent of the total population, in Israel's political and economic life.

When Arens was told that his idea meant the creation of a bi- national state he said Israel was already a bi-national state. Citing Jabotinsky's ideas, he added that Israel could continue to exist so long as the Jews have a majority of 51 per cent, which would still be true even after the annexation of the West Bank.

Some Likud figures support Arens in the hope of breaking the current deadlock and blocking the Palestinian quest for an independent state. This option, they say, is the least risky for Israel's future. What they all seem to conveniently ignore is that the international mood has changed. Their ideas are longer palatable or applicable.