In this season of goodwill, there is precious little of it for the Palestinian cause. International attention to the Palestinian issue has decreased and there is hardly any media interest, except when a flotilla tries to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza or when an American presidential peace initiative on the White House lawns heralds yet another false dawn. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, speaking in 1932 of the Zionist movement, said Palestine is for the Palestinian people what England is for the English and France for the French. Astutely, he did not say, for the Arabs, but for the Palestinians who lived there and those who regarded Palestine as their home.

The choices after World War II were between a unitary State, two separate States and a federal State. Einstein wrote to Nehru in 1947, urging a separate State for Israel. But India voted at the United Nations against the partition plan to create a separate State for the Jews. History may well record that a federal State on the lines envisaged by India would have been a better prospect, and that the Jews and the Arabs would learn to live together. But the Oslo accords implicitly recognized that a State of Palestine would emerge after an interim period, and this principle is now accepted by everyone. The question remains; what kind of State will it be?

There are several related issues that arise, each burdened with immense difficulty and emotion. The first is the area of the proposed State. After the 1967 war, 78 per cent of previously undivided Palestine was occupied by Israel, leaving 22 per cent in Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians lay claim to at least 50 per cent of the area. Additional problems arise with the Syrian Golan Heights under Israeli occupation, the Israeli settlements and the thrice-holy Jerusalem, regarded by Israel as the ‘eternal and undivided capital’ and equally adamantly claimed by Palestine as ‘al-Kuds’.

Another impediment to any settlement would be the Palestinian refugees who left in 1948 for Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Gaza. They have the theoretical and internationally guaranteed right to return, or be given financial compensation. The Palestinians know that Israel will never allow 4 or 5 million Palestinian refugees to return, which would change the demographics of Israel, the self-proclaimed State of the Jews. So the refugees will either have to go to the envisaged new State of Palestine or be absorbed in the host countries with financial compensation.

The whole area is water-scarce, and sharing water resources will be another major complication, which will call for regional cooperation, an aspect singularly lacking so far in almost every field. Security and freedom from terrorist attacks are the most important considerations for Israel, but if and when the other issues are resolved to mutual satisfaction, this obstacle could possibly be surmounted. The wall or barrier built by Israel along the Green Line has effectively contained acts of violence and suicide bombings, leaving Gaza as the main remaining source of threat to Israel.

As a result of Oslo, the Palestine Authority came into existence. Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, the president of the Authority, was doubtful of his Fateh faction’s success in any election and procrastinated, but was pressed by the United States of America and Israel to hold them. The result was a split in the Palestine leadership, with Gaza under Hamas, an ideological and political entity distinct from the West Bank, where Abbas now has his headquarters at Ramallah. The international community led by Israel has placed a complete embargo on Gaza’s one and a half million people who suffer poverty and deprivation, leaving Abbas in an acute dilemma. He would like to reconcile with Hamas, for which Egypt has made strenuous efforts, but Israel makes it clear that if that happens, it will terminate all contacts with Abbas or any group of which Hamas is a part. George W. Bush’s roadmap went nowhere, and Barack Obama’s envoy, George Mitchell, has stumbled on the hurdle caused by Israeli settlements, which are regarded internationally as illegal.

On the occupied West Bank, there are 300,000 Israelis in settlements, and 200,000 more in East Jerusalem, which is a predominantly Arab area and must probably, in any eventual settlement, be awarded to Palestine. Israel, on the other hand, states that 3,000 more constructions will continue on the West Bank, whereas the Palestine Authority responds that there will be no talks unless there is a ban or at least a freeze. Obama issued an abject plea to Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to freeze settlement building, but Israel rebuffed the appeal. An initial gesture by Netanyahu to stop the construction for 10 months was absurdly hailed by Washington as “a historic and unprecedented concession”, but its resumption when the time-limit expired in September, 2010, has put an end to Obama’s peace process. What is of utmost importance is that Israel has successfully obscured the issue of its wholly illegal occupation of Palestinian land to such an extent that the matter of Israeli settlements is now being portrayed as the sole problem between the Palestinians and Israel. This has very grave implications for the future.

An appeal by Abbas to freeze the settlement construction, even for six months, so that talks can resume has been ignored, leaving the Palestinian leader hugely discredited. Now the Americans have fallen on their knees and begged Netanyahu for a 3-month freeze on West Bank settlements against guarantees of not asking for further suspensions, more security-related aid and preventing the UN from passing any censure. Does the White House believe a two-State settlement can be achieved in three months, or is it the product of a desperate need to show some kind of result from Obama’s peace initiative? Twenty years of on-off negotiations with the Israelis have produced no iota of relief for the Palestinians in spite of the Goldstone and Uribe UN reports condemning Israel for its illegal blockade of Gaza and abuse of human rights. While Abbas constantly loses face, Israel must know it will never again have the benefit of a Palestinian leader as moderate as Abbas. All his successors will be far more radical. Despite this, the Israelis have done nothing to strengthen his hand; not even token releases of any of the 10,000 Palestinians in prison, mostly without trial. This surely sets the stage for the third intifada, after the first in the late 1980s, and the second in 2000.

While the Middle East question may be off the radar screen, it is linked to international concern about terrorism because it is invoked by extremists as one of their grievances, whether through sincere commitment or lip service. If the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of at least a majority on both sides, it will remove one important plank of the militant agenda. If not, it remains a festering sore, contributing inspiration and volunteers for the extremist cause. The two-State solution may, in fact, be a blessing for the Israelis. The Arab citizens of Israel, now 20 per cent of the population, multiply much faster than the Jews and are expected to form the majority as early as 2035. Taken together with two and a half million Palestinians on the West Bank, it should be in Israel’s interest to seek a settlement before demographics change to its disadvantage as a ‘Jewish State’.

Meanwhile, the Israelis are content behind their security wall, and pinpricks from Gaza can be punished with impunity. They are confident that they can withstand a few days of condemnation from the UN and international community. Their opponents, the Palestinians, are divided into three groups; half a million in Gaza, 2.5 million on the West Bank and the diaspora of 7 or 8 million, and Abbas has no mandate to represent Palestine.

Over the past decade, Indian spokespersons have intoned the sterile reaction — namely, we support two States of Israel and Palestine, living peacefully side by side, eschewing violence or terror, and following the path of negotiations. In spite of our friendship with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, we have done nothing to leverage this position and promote these desirable objectives. The Palestine cause has lost its emotional appeal for our parliament, intellectuals, middle class and even the leftists. The Arab States themselves are not vocal about Palestine. What have they done to alleviate the suffering in Gaza? In its warfare against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israelis smugly profess to have had the tacit support of many Arab States.

Thus, for the rationally minded, there are no prospects for optimism. However, in the Holy Land, the unexpected must always be expected. Subterranean negotiations may be proceeding as in the case of the secretive Oslo process, and there are contacts always taking place at many levels. Therefore in that blessed area of miracles, it is proper to hope and pray for yet one more miracle to take place.