Is there a solution to the Palestinian issue?

Anyone following the developments of the Palestinian issue and listening to Arab and international channels will notice a wide divergence of opinions surrounding its likely outcomes. Part of this ambiguity stems from the conflicting and converging forces, making it difficult to determine the direction they might take. Likewise, the other side (Israel) seeks to convince itself and others that it has emerged victorious from the successive wars, especially in the occupied Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

As for the Arab countries, I can almost be certain that they all want to see the issue resolved, and that a lasting peace has been achieved between the Arabs and Palestinians and the Israelis. However, their visions and the scenarios they adopt differ from one country to another. There is no doubt that all Arab countries seek to allocate their resources to development, restructuring, and social protection instead of war. This includes the richest Arab countries in the Gulf region and the poorest Arab countries in the two African wings, east and west of the continent. These aspirations for a permanent solution in Palestine are not exempt from these aspirations for a permanent solution, neither the countries furthest from the epicenter of the conflict nor those closest to it, such as Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. These countries are the countries most affected by the outcomes of war or peace in Palestine.

Therefore, we must raise the following question: What are the basic steps required to reach a serious negotiating stage that ultimately leads to a schedule of measures required to be implemented by both sides, the Palestinians and the Israelis (most of which are required by Israel) in order to reach that horizon that opens the door to hope for a reasonable solution that gives the Palestinian people their full rights on a land over which they have full sovereignty, and which is capable of life and development?

First, now that the Gaza war is almost over, it is clear that the fighters and the resistance are not the party that should be negotiating. In my opinion, these factions must maintain their combat doctrine in anticipation of a situation in which the negotiations might fail and the Israeli army might return to its evil role, which the world witnessed vividly on television screens about 19 months ago. To complete this point, the negotiations must be undertaken by a delegation experienced in this matter, along with a team of researchers and advisors, including representatives from Jordan and Egypt. As for Hamas, it is also beginning to prepare itself to become a non-governmental organization that participates in elections, and it seeks to have a role in the governments and administration of the future state in the future.

The second required point is the restructuring of the Palestinian Authority and the building of a system for it capable of participating in the administration of the state while enjoying sovereignty and general authority. Late last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made a long-awaited decision, which came after much pressure, which is to appoint a vice president, Hussein al-Sheikh, the politician or pragmatist as some call him. Although some criticism was directed at him due to his Machiavellian ways - as they say - in managing the affairs of the country and its people, we are not here to analyze Hussein al-Sheikh, but rather to appoint him to be the next president after President Mahmoud Abbas.

This is the first step, which must be followed by many more, the most important of which is the process of linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank as a single unit. All the men in power are determined to do this, but no one expresses any fear about it. I was reminded of this when I was watching an Arab satellite news channel interviewing Bangladeshi President Dr. Muhammad Yunus, my classmate at Vanderbilt University in the United States. I remember that when he was cheering inside the university at the time, welcoming Bangladesh's withdrawal from the union with Pakistan, I shouted at him, reprimanding him for being a separatist. We remember that West Pakistan (currently Pakistan) and East Pakistan (currently Bangladesh) were separated from each other by Indian territory. This is a likely scenario in the future if Gaza and the West Bank are not closely linked without Israeli control, or if the Israeli crossings become the only route connecting the two wings of the awaited Palestinian state. This may require crossing through Jordan to Sinai and Gaza, preferably by railway.

The third step is to consider a project to rebuild Gaza and some areas in the West Bank, where Israel has committed numerous acts of systematic destruction, demolition, and terrorism, leading to the deterioration of infrastructure and superstructure, and the weakening of many public facilities in the water, electricity, and communications sectors. This is something that many countries around the world must pledge to fund, as they have remained silent about the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people and the brutal acts committed by Israel in Palestine.

The fourth necessary step in this region is to consider making Israel part of the Middle East. However, many analysts do not see any specific meaning in the term Middle East. In the opinion of Prince Hassan bin Talal, a thinker and entrepreneur, the term Middle East or Near East (like other British terms) does not give the Arab countries a continental identity. Although he believes that a term like MENA has a continental dimension limited to Africa, he denies the identity of the Arab countries in West Asia. Therefore, he believes that the term WANA, or West Asia and North Africa (WANA), is the better term. As for the Arab East, he sees it as composed of Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Turks, and we may add the term Jews to it in the future.

In order to achieve these advanced steps, the Arab world must take a coherent position, insisting that the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must embody the solution accepted by the Arabs in 2002 at the Beirut Summit in Lebanon. They must all bear the responsibility of adhering to this matter and not enter into any agreements with Israel until it accepts the two-state solution based on the Arab Initiative, which is identical to Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 of 1967, which were accepted by the major powers, and none of which voted against it.

After the Palestinian and Israeli sides sign this agenda, both parties will be given five years to implement the required steps, including an Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied and established settlements and agricultural kibbutzim on, and returning them to their owners, whether the government or the local population. By the end of the five years, all Arab states will have recognized Israel, followed by Islamic states, which will open official, commercial, and other relations with it. Within this framework, a code of ethical conduct will be established, to which both sides will adhere, pledging not to take any measures that might undermine the dignity, sanctities, or ideals of the other party. The major powers will pledge and guarantee that Israel will implement all the resolutions it has committed to, as will the Arab states, particularly those that have signed peace treaties with Israel.

If the Arabs, through their determination and unified stance, are able to reach a final peace agreement with Israel by the end of 2030 or 2031, then time will be on their side to restructure their economies and implement production and distribution projects and decisions that will contribute strongly and directly to the development of their economies, enhance their productivity, and confirm their competitiveness, which will enable them to become independent of oil by around 2040, or when oil and natural gas are transformed from primary energy sources into various raw materials used in the petrochemical industry, which may continue to be used until the end of the twenty-first century.

Thus, the Arabs have achieved their dream of developing their economies away from fossil fuels (shale oil, crude oil, or gas), using the surpluses they generate from selling these materials in the near term. They will do so most efficiently if the Arabs begin now to improve their internal relations and restructure the joint Arab institutions, most, if not all, of which are on the verge of collapse, so that these institutions become more effective, especially in addressing common Arab problems, resolving the divisive issues between Arab countries, and achieving continuous cooperation among them. Without this, their future will not be bright, and peace with Israel will mean Israeli economic control over Arab decisions, something that no one would accept from anyone else. Ask Trump about that if you wish.