The "two-state solution" should not be read as supporting Israel's security; Why Anwar's position is flawed and why a full retraction and an apology are due?

The field of international diplomacy and relations is known for its over-scrutiny of words to check for meaning, gap and intention. In that infamous AWSJ article, Anwar clearly use the word “security for Israel”, which he later argues must be read within the context of the “two-state solution”. In reality, security of Israel is never part of the “two-state solution” agenda. While Palestinian Authority (PA)/Arab League may recognize Israel as a state, Hamas at least, will never guarantee or place responsibility of Israel’s security onto the Palestinians-Arabs. Meaning that, even if Israel got recognized as a country, the state of violence might continue. While trying to defend his AWSJ interview, Anwar’s interpretation of “two-state solution” is still ideologically flawed. Dr. Nur Manuty audaciously claim that Anwar’s AWSJ statement is in line with Hamas’s position despite the press article on Hamas ‘s position contradicting both Anwar/Nur Manuty’s is actually posted on Anwar’s blog for everyone’s reading.  

At best, Anwar’s choice of words was bad. At worst, he is trying to pacify his Jewish friends in the West. He used the word “tricky” to describe the possibility of Malaysia having diplomatic relations with Israel as if formal relations between Malaysia and Israel is a possibility. Both words “security” and “tricky” are pacify agents, no matter how they are explained and rationalized. To pacify whom? Let’s leave that to the political pundits. But I honestly can’t see someone with Islamist background, say TG Haji Abdul Hadi Awang, using such words to explain his positions on Israel and Palestine. Anwar can accept the “two-state solution” if he wishes to but don’t go as far as supporting Israel’s security. Again, security of Israel is not part of Palestinian's "two-state solution". The Palestinians won’t go that far so why the need to say so? Equally important, don't go around the country influencing others to accept your stance on Israel's security!

The “two-state solution” viability is contingent on Zionist regime agreeing to demands that Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their land and becoming full citizen of the Israel and that East Jurusalem is anointed as the head state of Palestine. Zionist position is to claim full control of East Jurusalem and declare Israel a “Jewish” state (thus making it impossible for Palestinian-Arabs to reclaim their land). In essence, the “two-state solution” is dead.   

Things have become more interesting; while it is publicized that Hamas leadership is open to the “two-state solution” using “1967 UN resolution” borders, PAS rejected the idea. It even hinted that Palestine’s cause is a responsibility of the greater Muslim Ummah thus should not be decided at the Pan-Arabia geo-political stage alone. From my (poor) memory, this is the first time that PAS has ever diverged formally and openly with its Islamist brethren if the Hamas report is to be true and this is indeed refreshing. This is not a matter of who’s right or wrong because even if PAS disagrees, I think their opposition to the “two-state solution” is academic. What really at stake is the future of Malaysia’s foreign policy.  Even if Israel got its prized recognition from PA/Arab League, PAS argues that Malaysia should not ever consider likewise and would just do by keeping the status quo. For PAS, the terrible religious, moral, legal and international wrongs committed by the Zionists are too much to bear that Malaysia should not ever, ever consider give its recognition to Israel, what’s more a formal relation, no matter what happens in Middle East.           

For PAS, there is no “tricky”. Just plain NO. Mabruk!

I seldom hit the newspapers nowadays. But a few days back, an article in The Star openly criticize Malaysia’s foreign policies and administration, even calling Wisma Putra a “black hole” for its ineffectiveness, incompetence and malaise. At a glance, the accusation looks true. Malaysia is no longer punching above its weight, the article said which I think is aptly described. It is a lengthy article, a rare open rebuke which unfortunately, I was too lazy to cut and safekeep. Even in Muslim affairs, despite being an OIC founding member, we have now let Turkey, Indonesia and Iran took leadership. I could only imagine the kind of sh*thole we have fallen into if we would ever consider to actually establish formal relations with Israel.   


***************************
My study supervisor received an interesting explanation from Dr. Azzam with regards to Ismail Haniyeh's statement which have been widely quoted as Hamas's agreement to the "two-state solution". (Note : Prof Md. Nazari was one of Dr Azzam reviewers for his book on Hamas)


Ismail Haniyeh was actually commenting on Hamas's 'Hudna' (long-term truce) proposal based on the UN resolution of 1967 borders which would somehow create a "two-state situation". Ismail Haniyeh rejected a 'solution' because it will tantamount to a finality and a recognition of the Israel state which Hamas can never accept. The press accepted Hamas "two-state situation" explanation as THE "two-state solution" hence the confusion.


This explanation is definitely closer to Hamas general position and actually makes more sense. It also confirms that PAS policy remain in tandem with its Islamist counterpart and Anwar's AWSJ statement is neither aligned with Hamas nor the wishes of the Palestinians.