The ruling concept regarding the Arab Israeli conflict is a "two state solution", meaning two states inside the borders of Israel between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river. Living in peace one next to the other, Israel and next to it an Arab-Palestine state in the Gaza strip and in Judea and Samaria, approximately along the pre-1967 borders.

This concept stands on the basis of the national process that started the signing of the Oslo accord in 1993, a process that failed.

The failure in the implementation of Oslo and the observation of the history of the relationship between Zionism, Israel and the National Arab movement, encourages a new examination of this way of thinking and encourages the creation of a new way of thinking.

Why did Oslo fail?

A lot of books and papers were written about the failure of the Oslo accords. Most of them talk about the political and security related events since the signing of the accord until today. Most of them get caught in the "hen and egg" trap.

In this view, it is easy to fall in to this trap of blaming one another, and especially the "blame game syndrome".

Israel is responsible for the implementation of the accord to its citizens. For example, the massacre in the Cave of Machpelah and the Rabin assassination. Moreover, these acts and mistakes that were made in management, mistakes which hurtled the process, are not the main reasons for failure.

The right approach to examining the failure has to be one that examines the fundamental principles, the policies and the management from both sides.

This examination brings the following diagnosis:

1.       In the accord Israel recognized the right of the Palestinian people to have self determination and recognized the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians, on the other side, did not recognize Zionism as a national Jewish movement and did not recognize the rights of the Jews to a national Jewish country, an independent Jewish state. The Palestinians delayed Israel's efforts to insist on the Palestinian recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. Rabin had to give up this requirement in the Oslo accord, and had to be satisfied with Arafat's word that he will change the Palestinian Charter in a way that it will recognize Israel. The charter was not changed in spite of the commitment.

2.       This lack of recognition shows that the Palestinians are striving for the disappearance of Israel as an independent Jewish state, or in other words: the Palestinian's goal is not an Israeli state within the 1967 borders (Gaza, Judea and Samaria) but a Palestinian state on Israel's ruins. It is important to remember that the Palestinian unification did not come after the six day war, but with the foundation of Zionism. In my opinion, Arafat started a war in September 2000 to escape from the "two state solution and the de-facto recognition of Israel as an independent Jewish state. In addition we can see a pattern in Arafat's war of terror that is very similar to the reaction of Palestinians in previous attempts to divide the land: in 1937 the Phil Committee and the "Arab Rebellion"; in 1947 the UN partition plan and the War of Independence afterwards.

3.       There are those who say that the PLO leadership would have not been able to establish a state within the 1967 borders; I say that the problem was not of ability but of will. Arafat deliberately established a gang-style entity with no accountability so that he can maintain this unification by giving sub-agents like the Tanzim (that later became Al-Aqsa martyr's brigade, Hamas, etc) freedom of action. Abu Mazen is acting the same by using his weaknesses to deny his accountability. A chosen weakness.

4.       The disengagement from the Gaza strip in 2005 was an opportunity for the Palestinians to show themselves and the world that the end of Israeli occupation in Gaza will bring change in every aspect: in the field of security the cessation of terrorism, internal law and order, economic growth and political stability. Hamas taking control of Gaza by force, the internal conduct and the ongoing rocket fire on Israeli settlements show that the Israeli "occupation" (the territories that were conquered in the 1967 war), as the west calls it, is not the same definition that the Palestinians use, referring to all of Israel; from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea.

5.       The Islamic Jihad's seizure of control by in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes the discussion over the territorial commitment irrelevant because:
A) according to the Islamists the have no authority to discuss the land of Israel (because it is sacred- Waqf). 
B) Israel's attempts to comply with their demands to withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005 only strengthened the Islamic Jihad.

To summarize, since the beginning of Zionism there was no Palestinian leadership that was willing to acknowledge the right of the Jewish people to an independent Jewish state. In addition, since the beginning of Zionism there was no Palestinian leadership that was willing to accept a Jewish state within the 1967 borders as a final agreement. Under these circumstances there is no way to establish a secure situation with a "two state solution".

Examination of the future situation considering past attempts

Considering Palestinian leaderships throughout time, the question "is it possible to trust any Palestinian leadership in existence of responsible national entity?" Comes to mind.

1.       Palestinian leaderships brought destruction to every country they were able to settle down in (Jordan Lebanon, Israel)

2.       Palestinian leaderships did not keep their commitments and agreements.

3.       Palestinian leaderships have not shown any interest in economic growth (the financial aid was not used to build an economic foundation, they have disabled  their own industrial zones and corruption scared off investors)

Therefore I do not see the possibility of an economically independent Palestinian entity. The economic gap between Palestine and Israel is the recipe for instability. In addition, I do not see the possibility of the existence of a Palestinian entity that will bring stability and security. Nevertheless the possibility of a hostile entity is huge.

The Oslo accords increased and perpetuated the asymmetry of the Arab-Israeli conflict in favor of the Palestinians: the Israeli demands for security talks were still only about a part of the country, when the Palestinian demand referred to the whole state of Israel. Likewise the domestic Palestinian problem became an Israeli problem without any contributions or compensation from any other country in the area. While Israel's commitment towards the negotiations is "written in stone", the Palestinian commitment looks like it is "written in ice".

Proposition for a different strategy

In order to enable a new way of thinking we have to eliminate the failing one. One of the most important failed ways of thinking is the "need to find a solution now". In my opinion we need to look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in terms of conflict management not conflict resolution. It is right to propose a conflict resolution strategy; the strengthening and preservation of Israeli interests and the preparation of the ground for the future. The Oslo way of thinking assumed, among others, that a national solution and the development of different areas will bring peace, hence peace will bring security. This way of thinking is relevant till today. There is a need for a new strategy from "the bottom-up", to let the Palestinians prove that they can and want to rule in a responsible way according to the principles of "one law, one entity, and one arm". There is a need to strengthen the political separation between the PA and Israel, the Israeli interest is not to rule over the Palestinians or their lives. In the current situation in Judea and Samaria there is a dependent Palestinian autonomy and an intensive reciprocal relationship with the Israeli economic infrastructure (water, energy), and a dependence on import and export. Israel needs to completely disengage from Gaza (in a gradual way to avoid a humanitarian crisis).

The needed reforms

Five reforms are needed in the PA to prove their ability to rule, and to promote some kind of possibility for an agreement in addition to a stable situation in the fields of politics, security, society and economics:

1.       Educational reform; there is no way of getting a stable agreement as long as the Palestinian educational system keeps educating the children not to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish independent state and treats Zionism as colonialist organization. There is no possibility of agreement as long the educational system keeps educating the Jihad and Istishhad (martyrdom). This reform needs to include changes in the curriculum and an end to incitement in the public political discourse, in the media and in the mosques.

2.       A reform in law and order; the aim in this field needs to be "one authority, one law and one arm". A strong system of law enforcement that will not allow the creation of armed gangs and organizations.

3.       Security reform; it is PA's responsibility to implement what they have previously committed to; a unification of all the security elements and extensive counter-terrorism measures. The lack of law enforcement sent a message to the organizations that terrorism is legitimate.

4.       Economic reform; the point of an economic reform is the need to motivate and strengthen the economy with the help of small and medium business men to strengthen the Palestinian middle class. The transfer of millions of dollars to the Palestinians failed because of corruption that led to the mismanagement of money, a leadership that prefers terrorism over economic growth and terror organizations which prefer poverty and distress over economic gains in order to recruit the masses in the war against Israel. The economic reforms are aimed at uprooting corruption and encouraging economic initiatives. This process needs to be supervised by external experts to endow clarity, fairness and competition.

5.       Political reform; this reform needs to bring a change form dictatorship to democracy. It needs to be strengthened by educational reforms. There is a need to strengthen Palestinians that promote life instead of death, human rights and not oppression. The reform needs to include the building of institutions for the establishment of democracy, encourage the establishment of NGOs to strengthen civil society and promote freedom of speech, freedom of press and human rights.

Israel's role in implementing the reforms

Israel can help a lot with these reforms; we have experience in promoting democracy, a free market, law and order, security and more. The Palestinians might not want our help, and we should accept that. To enable these reforms Israel needs to make it easier on the freedom of movement.

Humanitarian solution for the problem of the refugees

There are a lot of people, especially Arabs, interested in maintaining and feeding the refugee problem to use it as a weapon against the legitimacy of Israel. It is in Israel's interest to supply a humanitarian solution to the refugee's problem.

To summarize, if there is no will on the Palestinian side, there is no way the reforms will work. There is a need to convince the PA to implement the reforms, and the international community to use "sticks and carrots". The reforms depend on one another.

There is no way this will work if the Palestinians still see that there is a possibility to vanquish Israel. The task of a final agreement includes more concessions on the side of Israel and it gives the Palestinians more hope that Israel can be vanquished. It does not help the peace process. Israel needs to change its strategy.