Dilemma of the Two-State Solution
"The United States is committed to maintaining Israel's qualitative edge in the region," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said about America's proposed $3 billion sale of warplanes to Israel, the latest deal to keep the Palestinian peace process alive. America would supplement the 20 F35s Israel plans to buy with a further sale six or seven times larger, when border status on its two-state solution is realized.
Borders, however, don't ensure political accord between states. If defense initiatives are driving the agenda of the two-state resolve, increasing border security could take precedence over developing political infrastructure for general security in negotiations.
Already the Palestinians are resisting it. Would another bilateral defense deal protect borders from encroaching Israeli settlements and their defense systems? Current defense arrangements suggest not. As with other deep-rooted Middle Eastern conflicts there is a dynamic to them that now involves the defense industry. Regional ramifications of the industry now stretch from the Iraqi war to Israel's desire to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.
And within its global reach are joint U.S. and Israeli development programs. Projects such as the Arrow Missile System and the Tactical High Energy Laser are not just coordinated for technical expertise between the United States and Israel, but the apparel is promoted via conflicts. Testing in the battlefield attracts customers from every continent—an upward trend with 70 percent of the industry exported by Israel.
So is it any wonder the Palestinians are hesitant about this proposal? The geostrategic strength of U.S. and Israeli defense systems could dissuade Palestinians from its international validity—especially as the deal involves a U.S. block against Palestinian and U.N. interaction on statehood.
Security and defense
"In any event, I insist that any proposal meet the state of Israel's security needs, both in the immediate term and vis-à-vis the threats that we will face in the coming decade," Prime Minister Netanyahu said regarding the proposal.
Israeli accord within the state system is becoming essential to address them, especially via the regional framework. Codifying security needs, such as declining resources and industrial practices for systemic regulation, is now crucial for general sustainability and key to the entire political resolve of this ancient conflict.
Setting up political infrastructure on regional imperatives is more than constructive dialogue. It is forging parameters of progressive rationale—long since foregone by the faithful via obsolete rivalries to the battle-weary land of their prophets. Instead of blooming desserts, the land is wrecked with warfare. Conquest upon conquest has not only desecrated its divine value as heaven on earth; the process of warfare has directed progressive understanding into power struggles.
While Israel fails to perceive the broader reality of 21st century security threats, the likelihood of realizing "security" with another state so intensely bordered within isn't realistic. And the current defense proposition doesn't spell them out.
"Here we are going with a process in which we give up all the land of Israel, but the other issues still exist," Silvan Shalom, minister of regional development, told Israel Radio. "If Israel has a three-month freeze, the pressure to establish borders will be unbearable."
It's also an American problem. Every bilateral defense deal in the Middle East consolidates the framework of reasoning into defending state borders. They've also merged U.S. global interaction with Israeli U.N. resistance. Collective security arrangements and regulating defense industry do not apparently factor into the current context of negotiations. Nor do the regional demographics of further settlements and resource management register.
Nor would applying the universal value of Jerusalem be considered for overcoming the region's theocratic discord. Instead recognition for the Judaic state of Israel time and again is demanded up front and foremost. These are all issues that affect the general security and long-term political stability of Israel and Palestine. And they probably won't factor without regional and U.N. interaction in this process.
This is the American problem. The strategic value of Israel's bilateral alliance with the United States could be detracting from a comprehensive political resolve. Thus far it has been to the detriment of the systemic strength of global security. If the issues of this conflict and the process of resolving them—especially those regarding security—are primarily subject to a geostrategic alliance, current negotiations could be sidelining the conflict's root causes from their geopolitical resolve.
The process, after all, is also the resolution. Realizing general security is an ongoing process engendering systemic accord. It generates a dynamic superseding the dynamic of warfare. And that's something that has failed to materialize through past "peace processes" forged in the United States. Within every one to date, calibrating political infrastructure to the global degree has been subjugated by bilateral and individual concerns. In the meantime, far-reaching security consequences for all states in the Middle East as well as the world's super military power are mounting.
"If we get to August 2011, and we need a little more time to get this done; we'll take that time," said P.J. Crowley of the U.S. State Department. Maybe there's no time left.
Laurelle Atkinson is a geopolitical analyst in Australia.
View the Worldpress Desk’s profile for Laurelle Atkinson.