Lapid.. the non-state state!

Written by: Dr. Nagy Sadeq Sharab

The recent statement of the Prime Minister of Israel in the interim transitional government, Yair Lapid, about

His support for the two-state solution and that the establishment of a peaceful Palestinian state is in the interest of the two peoples and the security of Israel. This statement was made by Netanyahu before that. The irony is also that Naftali Bennett, in his speech before the General Assembly at its previous “seventy-sixth” session, did not mention the Palestinian issue at all, as if it was not It exists in Zionist thought, but it really does not exist.

Lapid's statement does not mean first of all his belief in the Palestinian state, but rather his goal was to achieve some electoral goals, including his support first of the administration of President Biden, who really praised him, and to win the support of internal Arabs in the upcoming elections and absorb the escalating state of violence in the Palestinian territories. This state is not what some believe, as it is subject to Israeli and Zionist standards. It is not subject to the criteria of the state in the traditional concept in the political literature about the state with its three or four pillars: the continuous geographical territory known for its borders, and defining the borders is an important matter for the availability of the second pillar of sovereignty, without these borders there is no meaning of sovereignty. The third element is the people with their national and national identities, and the fourth is the government and authority.

The two important elements are territory and sovereignty in the Hobbesian sense: absolute, complete, indivisible, and universal. These two elements are not available in Zionist thought, nor in the vision of Lapid himself. As for the element of the people, which imposed and imposes on the leaders of Israel the approach of the state or the talk of a two-state solution in a solution to deal with the element that constitutes a great force, we have the equivalent of the same population with Israel from the river to the sea. Today, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are nearly six million. Israel, for its part, does not want to return to the option of taking responsibility for them. As for the choice of power, it did not achieve its goal, and therefore Israel has no choice but to hint at the option and the two-state solution from time to time.

There are many questions about the Palestinian state, the most important of which is why a state was not established historically and according to the mandate system? Returning to the first Zionist conference, which stipulated the establishment of a national home for the Jews and the Balfour Declaration, does that mean preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state? What is the purpose of the Jewish National Law? What does land mean in Zionist thought? Answering all the questions together makes it clear to us historically that the goal is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state that was intended and planned, since the Balfour Declaration, as neither Britain nor its foreign minister has the right to grant Zionism land that is not theirs and under occupation, and the most dangerous thing in the promise is the explicit text on the establishment of the Jewish homeland. And the homeland carries the meaning of a state, and this country was not specified. The Palestinian people, who are historically rooted and did not come from abroad, were dealt with as mere minorities with some rights. And Palestine was deliberately placed under the British Mandate to implement the promise and translate it on the land at times by encouraging Jewish immigration, at another time by facilitating the transfer of land and its ownership to the Jews, and at a third time by encouraging the arming of Jewish groups and building institutions, leading to the UN resolution presented by Britain after it confirmed its issuance. And do not forget that the United Nations was European in composition and influence. The borders of this state, which Ben-Gurion considered as a step in occupying all the land, were not defined, and this was achieved in the 1948 war, in which Israel added more than 25 percent of its area, according to Resolution 181, and to complete this area with the 1967 war, to begin the process of settlement, Judaization, and all This is under the auspices of the United Nations, the sponsorship of the United States, and the use of the "veto" in the Security Council to prevent the imposition of any sanctions on Israel, so that legitimacy remains without force and the concept of the Palestinian state remains empty of all its sovereign implications, and the most we have reached is an observer state without the right to vote or membership. The important point in this Zionist thinking is the association of Palestine with Zionist narratives such as a land without a people for a people without a land. The promised land is all linked to the right of the Jew to settle all of Palestine. This is confirmed by the settlement map today, which swallowed all the land allocated to the Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, which is considered a historic concession that did not convince Israel that it is an occupying state, and this is the major problem of refusing to recognize that it is an occupying state.

The problem that faced this thought was the Palestinian people’s preservation of their existence on their land, even inside Israel, their preservation of their identity, their success in building their national institutions, national values and symbols, and their success in extracting the recognition of the Palestinian state by more than 120 countries.

These facts on the ground imposed on Lapid and before him Netanyahu and others that there is no alternative to the establishment of the state, but it is a state by the standards of Israel, a state without borders and without an army and without land, sea and air windows and a state without sovereignty, it is a protocol state that is higher than the authority of self-rule and less than a state And a country whose citizens do not have the right to return to it, and a country without a capital and without the return of refugees... a country that bears the name only, a country in the heart of a country that has full control over the land and security. This is what Lapid and others mean
[email protected]