The Trump Administration Should Intervene on the Basis of the Two-State Solution
HIRAYAMA Kentaro / Journalist
March 30, 2017
US President Donald Trump, after his first meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, touched on the “two-state” solution for Israel and Palestine during their joint press conference. “I'm looking at two states and one state. And I like the one that both parties like. I can live with either one,” Trump said. His comments drew the attention of the world’s media as a retreat from the two-state method endorsed by the UN Security Council as a prescription for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a proposal made by none other than the US government, under the leadership of then President George W. Bush.
And while President Trump urged the Israeli government to exercise self-restraint in its accelerated drive to build Jewish settlements in the west bank of the River Jordan that Israel continues to occupy, he made no mention of the recent UN Security Council resolution that criticized the construction of such settlements as a violation of international law. The previous administration of President Barack Obama, nearing the end of his term, had played an instrumental role in getting the resolution adopted by refraining from exercising the US right to veto.
On his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu has praised the Trump administration as the best US government in history for Israeli interests, and presented two conditions for negotiations during the same press conference. He was undoubtedly motivated to attach these conditions because he was aware that the two-state solution currently has broad support among Jewish voters in the US.
The first condition requires the Palestinian side to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as a “Jewish state,” while the second seeks to ensure continued Israeli control over security in all areas west of the River Jordan.
Giving explicit recognition to a concept that equates Israel with a “Jewish state” would lead to discriminatory treatment of Arab residents in Israel, who account for nearly 20 percent of the population, and make it difficult for Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee when Israel gained statehood to return to their homes. This is obviously not an option for the Palestinian side. Apparently, Prime Minister Netanyahu is prodding the Palestinians to agree to direct negotiations “without preconditions,” while at the same time setting an insurmountable hurdle. The Palestinian side will interpret this as a ploy to postpone any direct talks.
The same thing can be said about maintaining security in the West Bank. Palestinian territory constitutes only about 40 percent of the total area of the West Bank occupied by Israel. And in reality, Palestinian police authorities have been unable to keep Islamic militants such as Hamas under control on its own, leaving rough work requiring combat, such as arresting suspects, to Israeli military forces. Yet, as long as Israeli forces are free to come and go, Palestine would not be a truly independent state, even if it were to win its independence.
“What if Hamas rises to power in an independent Palestine?” Highlighting this threat has been the trump card of Israel’s right-wing factions, including the Prime Minister. The United States has been engaged in arbitration for a quarter century. President Bill Clinton, who went the extra mile in seeking a solution, even presented the Palestinian side with an offer to dispatch US troops under a mediation plan proposed in 2000. If the Trump administration has the will to uphold the two-state solution, it is imperative that the US pays due care to issues such as guaranteeing security through international military action and allowing Israeli forces to remain for a certain period of time during the transition, ensuring close cooperation with the Palestinian security authorities against terrorism.
On February 28, President Trump addressed the Joint Session of Congress, and while he spoke glowingly of Israel, his speech on the whole was unprecedentedly steeped in the language of international cooperation, allowing the public to catch its breath. For the time being, we can expect Pre Bannon, his Chief Strategist and ally during the presidential campaign, and his other senior officials who take a more realistic view, such as National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
sident Trump to waver between the opinions of ultra-rightist ideologues such as Steve
Japan should steadfastly adhere to its stated policy of supporting a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and maintain a discreet distance from the “Iran threat” - a review of the nuclear agreement - being played up by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Kentaro Hirayama is a member of the Editorial Staff of “The Arab” quarterly magazine, and former NHK Executive Commentator.
And while President Trump urged the Israeli government to exercise self-restraint in its accelerated drive to build Jewish settlements in the west bank of the River Jordan that Israel continues to occupy, he made no mention of the recent UN Security Council resolution that criticized the construction of such settlements as a violation of international law. The previous administration of President Barack Obama, nearing the end of his term, had played an instrumental role in getting the resolution adopted by refraining from exercising the US right to veto.
On his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu has praised the Trump administration as the best US government in history for Israeli interests, and presented two conditions for negotiations during the same press conference. He was undoubtedly motivated to attach these conditions because he was aware that the two-state solution currently has broad support among Jewish voters in the US.
The first condition requires the Palestinian side to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as a “Jewish state,” while the second seeks to ensure continued Israeli control over security in all areas west of the River Jordan.
Giving explicit recognition to a concept that equates Israel with a “Jewish state” would lead to discriminatory treatment of Arab residents in Israel, who account for nearly 20 percent of the population, and make it difficult for Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee when Israel gained statehood to return to their homes. This is obviously not an option for the Palestinian side. Apparently, Prime Minister Netanyahu is prodding the Palestinians to agree to direct negotiations “without preconditions,” while at the same time setting an insurmountable hurdle. The Palestinian side will interpret this as a ploy to postpone any direct talks.
The same thing can be said about maintaining security in the West Bank. Palestinian territory constitutes only about 40 percent of the total area of the West Bank occupied by Israel. And in reality, Palestinian police authorities have been unable to keep Islamic militants such as Hamas under control on its own, leaving rough work requiring combat, such as arresting suspects, to Israeli military forces. Yet, as long as Israeli forces are free to come and go, Palestine would not be a truly independent state, even if it were to win its independence.
“What if Hamas rises to power in an independent Palestine?” Highlighting this threat has been the trump card of Israel’s right-wing factions, including the Prime Minister. The United States has been engaged in arbitration for a quarter century. President Bill Clinton, who went the extra mile in seeking a solution, even presented the Palestinian side with an offer to dispatch US troops under a mediation plan proposed in 2000. If the Trump administration has the will to uphold the two-state solution, it is imperative that the US pays due care to issues such as guaranteeing security through international military action and allowing Israeli forces to remain for a certain period of time during the transition, ensuring close cooperation with the Palestinian security authorities against terrorism.
On February 28, President Trump addressed the Joint Session of Congress, and while he spoke glowingly of Israel, his speech on the whole was unprecedentedly steeped in the language of international cooperation, allowing the public to catch its breath. For the time being, we can expect Pre Bannon, his Chief Strategist and ally during the presidential campaign, and his other senior officials who take a more realistic view, such as National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
sident Trump to waver between the opinions of ultra-rightist ideologues such as Steve
Japan should steadfastly adhere to its stated policy of supporting a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and maintain a discreet distance from the “Iran threat” - a review of the nuclear agreement - being played up by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Kentaro Hirayama is a member of the Editorial Staff of “The Arab” quarterly magazine, and former NHK Executive Commentator.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
トランプ米政権は『２国共存』で介入を
平山健太郎 / ジャーナリスト
2017年 3月 30日
トランプ米大統領とネタニヤフ・イスラエル首相の初の会談後の共同記者会見で、トランプ氏は中東和平について、イスラエルとパレスチナの「二国共存」論に触れ、「二国であれ、一国であれ、当事者の選択に委ねる」と発言。国連安保理がほかならぬ米政府（ブッシュ政権）の提唱を受け、パレスチナ問題解決への処方箋としてきた「二国共存」方式からの後退として世界のマスメディアの注目を集めた。
トランプ大統領また、イスラエル政府が加速しているヨルダン川西岸占領地へのユダヤ人入植地の造成についてイスラエル政府の「自制」を促してはいるが、この種の入植地造成そのものを国際法上違法であると非難したばかりの安保理決議には言及していない。この安保理決議では、任期切れ間際のオバマ米政権が拒否権を行使せず、棄権により決議の採択に貢献している。
一方、トランプ政権をイスラエルにとって史上最高の米政府と称えるネタニヤフ首相は、同じ記者会見で「イスラエル側には二つの条件がある」と切り出した。「二国共存」方式が米国のユダヤ人有権者にも支持されている現状を意識した上でのパレスチナ側への条件の提示だったとみてよかろう。
一つは、パレスチナ側がイスラエルを「ユダヤ人国家」として認めること。もう一つは、ヨルダン川の西にある全ての土地での治安維持についての責任は、イスラエルが担うというものだった。
「イスラエル＝ユダヤ人国家」という観念の明文化は、イスラエル人口の20％近くを占めるアラブ系住民への差別待遇につながり、イスラエル建国で各地に離散したパレスチナ難民のイスラエル領内への帰還を困難にするため、パレスチナ側が難色を示すことは必至だ。「前提条件なしの直接交渉」をパレスチナ側に促しながら、パレスチナ側が受け入れがたいハードルを示して、直接交渉の先送りを同首相が図っていると、パレスチナ側は判断するだろう。
ヨルダン川西岸の治安維持についても同様だ。西岸占領地全体の40％そこそこでしかないパレスチナ自治区の中でも、ハマスなどイスラム過激派に対する取り締まりが、パレスチナ警察だけでは力が及ばず、戦闘行為を伴う容疑者の逮捕など荒仕事は、イスラエル軍が引き受けてきたのが実情だ。しかしパレスチナが独立した場合、イスラエル軍の立ち入りが自由では独立国家とはいえない。
「パレスチナ独立国家がハマス政権に移行したらどうする」という脅威の強調が同首相を含むイスラエル右翼の切り札だ。米国は過去四半世紀にわたり、調停にあたってきたが、一番深入りしたクリントン元大統領は調停案のなかで、米軍の派遣すらパレスチナ側に提示している（２０００年）。トランプ政権が「二国共存」方式を支持する意志があるなら、治安維持についての国際的な軍事面での保証、過渡的な一定期間のイスラエル軍の残留（「テロ対策でのパレスチナ治安当局との緊密な協力」）などへの目配りが不可欠になろう。
米連邦議会の上下両院合同本会議（２月28日）で、トランプ大統領はイスラエルを激賞する発言はあったものの、全体としては、これまでにない国際協調色に染められた演説で世論に一息つかせた。選挙戦以来の盟友だったバノン首席戦略官ら超タカ派のイデオローグたちと、マクマイスター国家安全保障担当補佐官、マティス国防長官らのより現実的な高官らとの間で大統領の言動はまだしばらく揺れるだろう。
日本はパレスチナ問題については、従来通り「二国共存」路線への支持を堅持し、ネタニヤフ首相が強調するイラン脅威論（核合意見直し論）には、冷静に距離を置く立場をとり続けるべきだろう。
筆者は季刊アラブ編集委員・元ＮＨＫ解説主幹
トランプ大統領また、イスラエル政府が加速しているヨルダン川西岸占領地へのユダヤ人入植地の造成についてイスラエル政府の「自制」を促してはいるが、この種の入植地造成そのものを国際法上違法であると非難したばかりの安保理決議には言及していない。この安保理決議では、任期切れ間際のオバマ米政権が拒否権を行使せず、棄権により決議の採択に貢献している。
一方、トランプ政権をイスラエルにとって史上最高の米政府と称えるネタニヤフ首相は、同じ記者会見で「イスラエル側には二つの条件がある」と切り出した。「二国共存」方式が米国のユダヤ人有権者にも支持されている現状を意識した上でのパレスチナ側への条件の提示だったとみてよかろう。
一つは、パレスチナ側がイスラエルを「ユダヤ人国家」として認めること。もう一つは、ヨルダン川の西にある全ての土地での治安維持についての責任は、イスラエルが担うというものだった。
「イスラエル＝ユダヤ人国家」という観念の明文化は、イスラエル人口の20％近くを占めるアラブ系住民への差別待遇につながり、イスラエル建国で各地に離散したパレスチナ難民のイスラエル領内への帰還を困難にするため、パレスチナ側が難色を示すことは必至だ。「前提条件なしの直接交渉」をパレスチナ側に促しながら、パレスチナ側が受け入れがたいハードルを示して、直接交渉の先送りを同首相が図っていると、パレスチナ側は判断するだろう。
ヨルダン川西岸の治安維持についても同様だ。西岸占領地全体の40％そこそこでしかないパレスチナ自治区の中でも、ハマスなどイスラム過激派に対する取り締まりが、パレスチナ警察だけでは力が及ばず、戦闘行為を伴う容疑者の逮捕など荒仕事は、イスラエル軍が引き受けてきたのが実情だ。しかしパレスチナが独立した場合、イスラエル軍の立ち入りが自由では独立国家とはいえない。
「パレスチナ独立国家がハマス政権に移行したらどうする」という脅威の強調が同首相を含むイスラエル右翼の切り札だ。米国は過去四半世紀にわたり、調停にあたってきたが、一番深入りしたクリントン元大統領は調停案のなかで、米軍の派遣すらパレスチナ側に提示している（２０００年）。トランプ政権が「二国共存」方式を支持する意志があるなら、治安維持についての国際的な軍事面での保証、過渡的な一定期間のイスラエル軍の残留（「テロ対策でのパレスチナ治安当局との緊密な協力」）などへの目配りが不可欠になろう。
米連邦議会の上下両院合同本会議（２月28日）で、トランプ大統領はイスラエルを激賞する発言はあったものの、全体としては、これまでにない国際協調色に染められた演説で世論に一息つかせた。選挙戦以来の盟友だったバノン首席戦略官ら超タカ派のイデオローグたちと、マクマイスター国家安全保障担当補佐官、マティス国防長官らのより現実的な高官らとの間で大統領の言動はまだしばらく揺れるだろう。
日本はパレスチナ問題については、従来通り「二国共存」路線への支持を堅持し、ネタニヤフ首相が強調するイラン脅威論（核合意見直し論）には、冷静に距離を置く立場をとり続けるべきだろう。
筆者は季刊アラブ編集委員・元ＮＨＫ解説主幹
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟