As the political equation in the Middle East is being reestablished, the balances bound, and/or subordinate, to Israel are also being re-shaped. Setting aside the conscience-afflicting state of Syria which has left it out of the equation, the chaotic situation is pulling not only the Zionist occupation administration, but the entire region, into uncertainty. On the other hand the unsettled condition, especially in Egypt, of the new process which began with the ‘Arab Spring’ is pushing the parameters of the new order…

While our attention is rightfully locked on the civil war in Syria, Israel can become active in the Palestinian-Israeli “peace” process by benefitting from the uncertainty as an opportunity to reconfigure the balance and reverse the process in the least costly manner. As a matter of fact, messages indicating this direction are coming from both the Arab League and Israel.

The first sign of this process was evident from the many visits of the United States Foreign Minister to the Middle East, specifically Turkey, and the separate White House invitations extended to Middle Eastern leaders since John Kerry came into office. As much as Prime Minister Erdogan’s visit to the US this month is about the Syrian issue, it will also be closely related to Palestine. It is evident that while relations with Israel have improved after the “apology,” an important role is being assigned to Turkey.

As the most concrete development in the process, the announcement from the Arab League regarding their acceptance of discussing a land swap with Israel hints toward the logic of the new period.

It remains unclear what Obama’s initiative entails and whether it intends to open a new page or not. In an environment where Palestine is in fragments, uncertainty persists following the Arab Spring, conditions in Syria deprive the region from formulating a dynamic and unified strategy, and the region is even polarized internally, it must be noted that this constitutes a perfect opportunity for Israel.

It can be understood that the new period will seek to pursue a strategy which compromises the utmost conflicting poles. In terms of Palestine, it looks as if compromise rather than unification will be established between Hamas and Fatah or Gaza and the West Bank. In fact, when the meetings between Hamas and Fatah began being hosted under the supervision of Turkey, the US participated in the meetings as an observer.

In exchange for its recognition of Israel, Hamas—which is bogged down by blockades, embargoes, massacres, and attacks on Gaza in the new period— will strive to become an interlocutor in the balance in Palestine. Meanwhile Fatah will be secured a place in “peace” negotiations with the two fractions in exchange for supplying strength to the Palestinian administration which has no remaining authority. We are speaking of a new period in which the Gulf countries and Jordan have entered the equation, and Iran’s influence on Hamas has been lifted while countries such as Syria and Iraq, which have always been hindrances in the Palestinian issue, have become overwhelmed by their own hardships. We will likely see what the practical effectiveness of Egypt will be in this matter in which it is involved due to its internal problems.

Setting aside these hypotheses, the announcement made by Qatar in the past days in the name of the Arab League warns that not much has changed in the direction of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle. By contesting the principle accepted by the Arab League in 2002 regarding the recognition of Israel in exchange for its return to the 1967 borders, which was considered a great concession at the time, it announced that a land swap might be conducted. It is time to ask the last question which must be asked after this offer: You will swap Jerusalem in exchange for what?

In this article I will not debate whether this approach is right or valid, or the best out of the options in this situation. I will limit myself to reminding where this process— which began by refuting the existence of Israel and under the condition of reclaiming the lands occupied in 1948, but then resulted in recognizing Israel and then acquiescing to the 1967 borders, and even extended to not discussing the refugees’ right of return— is headed.

When evaluated historically, it can be said that until the great catastrophe experienced in 1967, the following thought was dominant among Palestinians: the armies of the Arab nations surrounding Israel will one day defeat it and the Palestinian people will regain their freedom. The 67 war showed that Arab countries neither have the intention to fight Israel nor the strength to save the Palestinians…

Under these circumstances, in the second phase the Palestinian people developed the strategy of pursuing their own struggles through their own means. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) commencement of its struggle by taking up arms and the support it received from Palestinians are products of this understanding.

In reaction to the reality that the external guerilla warfare of the PLO, which had become a large organization, had not been able to reclaim any occupied land, the First Intifada was an internal resistance.

Instead of the struggle pursued by the PLO, to which Arab nationalism supplied ideological momentum, in the reserve of Arab countries, the Intifada was shaped by a civil, mass and internal rebellion. During this period, it shifted to a resistance in which Islamic movements, rather than Arab nationalism, played a leadership role.

In the midst of the Cold War’s end and the chaos of the first Gulf War, Israel accepted a “peace” process with the PLO in order to prevent the rebellions arising internally. At the time when Arabs were most fragmented, Israel undertook talks with Arafat under the preconditions of accepting Israel’s existence. The result is obvious: Israel gained legitimacy in the international arena, and in exchange gave no real concession other than the return of Arafat and his group. Neither the refugee crisis, nor the status of Jerusalem, nor the establishment of a Palestinian state through Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders…

Quite the opposite as Jewish settlements have increased with each passing day, and have now reached a point of no return. Palestine became fragmented within itself in actuality and politically as Gaza and the West Bank. The “Wall of Shame” and the fragmentation of Gaza and the West Bank through their being surrounded by settlements are the resultant concrete and clear realities. With each passing day, the Zionist occupation has become more rooted and has gained time through the strategy of irresolution. And in many matters, it has become a reality that occupation cannot be reversed.

The Arab Spring’s commencement of the process through swapping requires us to ask the question again: You will swap Jerusalem in exchange for what?

�lgili Yaz�larEnglish