Table of Contents
We all have a responsibility to inform ourselves as far as practical and, especially if we are politicians, to verse ourselves in “Realpolitik”.
- Realpolitik refers to a pragmatic approach to politics, focusing on practical and realistic considerations rather than on ideological or moral principles.
Regarding being ideologically driven and ill-informed, we have Chlöe Swarbrick, providing advice (20 November 2023) on international affairs, i.e. the current conflict in Israel/Gaza. She said, “… it is incumbent on all political leaders in this country to stand-up to the plate (maybe she meant “step up”) and to say they call for a ceasefire and a return of the hostages and I would say for the incoming government to recognize the statehood of Palestinians…”
On October 6th there was a ceasefire…another ceasefire could be called but there would still be the possibility of a repeat of October 7th. Who is being asked to take this risk? Israel.
Many calling for a ceasefire face no risk whatsoever for themselves. It is very easy to be virtuous at others’ expense.
Regarding the return of hostages, that matter is self-evident so there is no insight there, other than to admit that the taking of hostages is a means to an end – and what are those ends?
- But what about the proposed solution of the statehood of Palestinians?
The two-state solution has been a proposed resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for several decades, aiming to create two separate states for Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side in peace and security.
- Various iterations and proposals for a two-state solution have been put forth by different parties, including governments, international bodies, and peace initiatives. The idea of a two-state solution has been discussed and presented numerous times.
Some notable instances where the two-state solution was discussed or offered include:
United Nations Partition Plan (1947): The United Nations proposed the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, which would have created two states. However, this plan was not fully implemented due to the subsequent Arab-Israeli War in 1948.
Oslo Accords (1993 and 1995): Negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) resulted in the Oslo Accords, which aimed to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This laid the groundwork for a future Palestinian state. However, the final status issues, including borders and Jerusalem, remained unresolved.
Camp David Summit (2000): A summit was held between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, mediated by US President Bill Clinton. Barak proposed a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with shared control over Jerusalem, but the negotiations collapsed without an agreement.
Annapolis Conference (2007): The conference aimed to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Both sides agreed to work towards a two-state solution but no significant progress was made.
Various International Initiatives: Over the years multiple international organisations, and entities, including the United Nations, the European Union, and other nations, have endorsed the two-state solution as the basis for resolving the conflict. They’ve periodically reasserted support and encouraged negotiations between the parties.
In substance, it has always been the Palestinians that have left the negotiating table. As an example, we have the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in July 2000. During these negotiations, there were high hopes for a breakthrough in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The talks, mediated by President Clinton, aimed to resolve long-standing conflicts, and establish a framework for peace, including issues like borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements.
However, at a critical juncture in the discussions, Arafat abruptly left the negotiations without offering any clear explanation or rationale. His departure was seen as a significant setback, as it disrupted the momentum of the discussions and left the parties without reaching a consensus or agreement. President Clinton and many involved in the negotiations expressed disappointment and frustration at Arafat’s unexpected departure.
What is to stop a similar, and sixth, occurrence?
Many politicians in New Zealand and abroad display a naïve yet ostensibly virtuous stance that proves unrealistic. They appear unwilling to acknowledge the demand is for Israel to take risks, stemming from their misunderstanding or refusal to confront the Middle East’s geopolitical and religious complexities.
Hamas founding member and former chief, Khaled Meshaal, along with Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian militant group aligned with Hamas, have urged for a jihad against Israel. Their call does not refer to an internal struggle or external ‘resistance’ but rather ongoing aggressions akin to those of October 7th. They intend to persist until their objective is accomplished (the elimination of Israel and the death of the Jews) and the evidence of past negotiations abandoned, and subsequent reinitiated conflicts, indicates that they are not swayed by external political discourse; rather they will use these pauses as an opportunity to regroup and rearm.
