In the past I wrote my thoughts on three ‘options’ to resolve the Zonist-Palestinian conflict based on the One State, Two-State and Helen Thomas’ Third option. The recent showdown between the leader of world’s sole military power, Barack Obama and Benji Netanyahu, the leader of world’s sole money power (which Benji won) on the former’s vision of One State option introduced me to a fourth option of Parallel States, Palestine and Israel sharing the same land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

The ‘Parallel States’ project was conducted within the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University. It was funded by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Swedish Research Council. It submitted its report in September 2010. The idea which gave birth to the project was; One secular-democratic state solution will never be acceptable Israeli Jews and the so-called ‘Two state’ has no chance to materialize unless it’s based on Israeli ‘wish list’.

I tends to agree with the theory that Obama-Benji conflicting rhetoric were pre-planned to sabotage Hamas-Fatah unity government’s threat to declare a Palestinian State.

In reality, both the ‘Two states’ and the ‘Parallel states’ options are to legitimize the Jewish occupation of Palestine. The current verbal-shooting between the US and Israel is more of a tactical controversy than a strategic one. The reason behind this latest Obama-Benji charade is to hijack the Hamas-Fatah unity government’s possible move to ask United Nations General Assembly to recognize an independent sovereign Palestine based on 1967 borders. The request is sure to be approved by a majority vote – but UN membership will certainly get Washington’s veto at the UN Security Council.

On May 28, 2011 – the pro-Israel Al-Jazeera (English), published an article entitled ‘Parallel states: A new vision for peece’. The ‘vision’ came from two Jewish scholars, professor Mark LeVine (University of California) and Mathias Mossberg, a former Swedish Ambassador. They compared their vision of a Jewish Israel sharing the same land with Native Muslim and Christian Palestinian state in parallel – with European Union (EU).

“Within our research, the most useful example of how various levels of jurisdiction can be shared is the European Union, where the rapid integration of the member states has transferred traditionally national legislative and judicial powers to supranational bodies, diminishing the importance of national boundaries and territorial sovereignty for the benefit of the exercise of transnational freedoms and rights for citizens within the Union,” wrote authors.

I wonder if the authors know that all EU members are Judeo-Christian majority nations which have maintained their original Armed Forces and some are nuclear powers. Each EU member has its own standards of human rights (most persecute Muslim and Gypsy minorities) and even maintain trade relations with some countries (Iran, Lebanon, Serbia, etc.) sanctioned by the EU.

The EU was originally established to ease trade and tourism among the European countries. Later it was politicized to counter the threat of United States’ economic domination of Europe. EU created its own euro currency against US dollar. However, when it comes to wars and colonization of foreign lands – EU has always been an American ally. The EU has resisted the inclusion of Muslim-majority Turkey’s wish to join it for the last 20 years.

“What is clear is that the Oslo era two-state solution was born out of a twentieth century notion of sovereignty that, at least in the case of Israel/Palestine is neither viable nor particularly desirable in the “New Middle East” Oslo’s architects imagined their peace process heralded. Almost two decades later, the region has finally moved towards a new era, but led by ordinary people rather than leaders who more often than not have frustrated rather than helped to realise the legitimate political, economic and cultural aspirations of their peoples,” wrote the authors.

The Oslo Accord signed on September 13, 1993 between PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin – was nothing but a diversion to pre-empt the Islamic Resistance groups taking over the leadership from the discredited secularists leadership. Israelis killed the agreement even before the ink dried.

“In the context of the Arab Spring, a parallel states process might just hold the key to helping Israelis and Palestinians join the region-wide push towards peace, democracy and justice in the fullest, and fairest, way possible,” wrote the authors.

Pity, both the US and Israel have been irked by the ‘Arab Spring’ – because both fear that ‘democracy and justice’ will give power to Islamist groups which will side with Palestinians and Iran against Israel. After watching its puppet-regimes falling in Egypt, Tunisia and Lebanon – Obama has already started his counter-revolution through its Arab proxy, Saudi Arabia.

“These changes have been followed by demonstrations against US domination and Zionism. They politically benefit the ‘Axis of Resistance’, comprised of Iran, Syria at the state level and at the non-state level by Hezbullah and Hamas. To lead the counter-revolution in this region, Washington and Tel-Aviv have relied on their best support: the Sudairi clan which embodies despotism at the service of imperialism unlike any other,” wrote Thierry Meyssan, a French intellectual, author and columnist.

Palestine and the ‘Parallel states’ | Rehmat's World