Alwaght- A couple of months ago, a proposal for peace, dubbed Middle East Peace Initiative, focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was proposed by France.

The historical record of the anti-occupation fighting of Palestine indicates that whenever the Palestinians’ resistance against the Israeli occupation came to a crucial juncture, the world community presented a peace proposal to contain its influences. Oslo Accords after warmed-up first intifada and Sharm el-Sheikh Agreement to stabilize the Palestinian Authority in West Bank after second intifada were example of the global community’s efforts to contain Palestinian uprisings.

The outcome of all of these plans has been derailment of the anti-occupation Palestinian revolts from their right track and diverting them from bearing favorable results. So, it can be concluded that the new initiative by France comes to frustrate the very latest series of anti-Israeli operations which have started in eastern Al-Quds since September 2015 and up to now have developed as a wide-ranging social movement.

Accordingly, when in late April 2016 the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault published the proposal, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called useless a French peace plan that, Paris assured, considered all of Tel Aviv’s interests, adding that he was ready for immediate resumption of peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority with no preconditions. He continued that his suggestion was restart of direct and mutual Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Israeli PM argued that other peace initiatives than direct talks could spur the Palestinians away from the negotiating table.

It must be seen why the Israeli regime rejects a peace initiative from a country with which Tel Aviv holds good relations, and why Tel Aviv should come under world community’s criticism should it totally refuses it. A couple of point are significant concerning the case.

The “two-state solution” has been held for a couple of years as a settlement way for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has its own supporters and opponents inside the Israeli regime. Those who for the idea argue that the Zionist community is incapable of establishing a government covering all of the Palestinian territory and so it has to accede to the Arabs’ presence beside it. This spectrum believes that once the Palestinian resistant factions are destroyed or reduced to compromising groups, Tel Aviv could allow the Palestinians to build their own state because it could make deals with the Palestinian Authority which spares no efforts to put down the anti-Israeli moves at home.

The opponents of the two-state solution are those who make no compromises when it comes to dealing with factors that endanger the Israeli security. They find the security a sacred issue. They take their ideas from the Talmudic teachings. One of them is Tel Aviv’s new defense minister Avigdor Lieberman. The analysts suggest that appointment of Lieberman, who is a major side against the international peace initiatives and negotiations with Palestine’s Mahmoud Abbas, is Netanyahu’s practical step against the upholders of the dialogue and two-state solution.

Commenting on the issue, Lieberman has said that those who thought that the best solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was Tel Aviv’s retreatment to the 1967 Border Line and allowing the Palestinian to form government with the eastern Al-Quds as it capital were “autistic”. He continued that if there would be a double-nation state, then knifing would be a normal, daily practice.

Even if the anti-two-state solution Israelis finally agree with the settlement with the Palestinians, they would seek destruction of the resistant Palestine’s factions, specifically the Islamic Jihad and Hamas which even after stepping into the political structure chose to continue fighting against the Israeli occupation.

Another hurdle to the French peace initiative is its approval of an occupant regime as a state; this gives the Israeli regime a legitimate status.

Should the Israeli regime accepts a Palestinian state beside it, in return, the Palestinians should recognize Tel Aviv regime as a legitimate state, and so they have to make serious and special efforts to guarantee the Israeli security- an issue that practically consumes energy of the Palestinian state in fight against the anti-Israeli resistant factions, and as a result, the intra-Palestinian struggle would take place of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This, in its place, would impair and perhaps obliterate the newly-formed Palestinian state.

Some of the Arab media consider the French peace initiative as a factor with which Paris aims at scandalizing Tel Aviv, adding that the Europeans, led by France, are serious in their determination to terminate the Palestinian-Israeli struggle and to find a fair and comprehensive solution for it, to pave the way for settling other crises of the region.

However, the fact is that, due to sway held by the Zionist lobbies over Europe, the anti-Israeli settlement stances taken by some of the EU’s officials should not be taken as a European initiative against the excesses of Tel Aviv. Certainly, this initiative is a European trap for the Palestinian resistance.

Finally, it must be concluded that Tel Aviv’s rejection of the peace negotiations is mostly incited by its excessive and occupational spirit. On the other side, the Israeli officials are well aware that the opposition to solution should not go to an unreturnable point.

Tamir Pardo, Mossad’s ex-chief, warned that Tel Aviv was nearing a no-return point in its conflict with the Palestinians. Pardo also cautioned against what he called losing the chance of accomplishing a two-state solution.

However, if the Israeli regime makes deal with the Palestinian Authority on the two-state solution, the Palestinian resistance would undergo a very serious threat.

By Alwaght