In the January 21, 2009 edition of The New York Times, one of the most prominent newspapers in the United States, an article bearing the signature of the then Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was published. Gaddafi, offering his own solution to the Israel-Palestine tension, elaborated on the "Isratine Project," previously announced to the world by his son Saif al-Islam at the renowned Chatham House in London. "Isratine," formed by combining the beginning and end of the words Israel and Palestine, was the name of the political administration where Arabs and Jews would coexist. The Palestinian territories, divided into five administrative regions, would unite under the umbrella of "Isratine," and the official name of the established state would be the "Holy Land Federal Republic." Jerusalem, like the Vatican, would be transformed into a city-state. Gaddafi suggested placing Jerusalem under the control of the UN. The proposal also envisioned the return of all Palestinian refugees to their homeland.
Whether Muammar Gaddafi was serious when presenting the Isratine proposal or genuinely believed the world would accept it remains unknown. Regardless of the background, the Isratine Project found its place in archives and memories as one of the proposed solutions to the Palestinian issue.
For over a century, numerous proposals and plans have been developed to eliminate the tension and chaos in ancient Palestinian lands. The Palestine (and Middle East) region, plundered by Western colonizers in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, has not benefited from this cascade of proposals and plans. Their common flaw was turning a deaf ear to the fundamental truth that the tension stemmed entirely from Jewish occupation and Zionist colonialism.
Today, one of the periodically introduced proposals is the "two-state solution." According to this, in exchange for Palestinians recognizing Israel's existence and legitimacy, an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem would be established. Israel would withdraw from everywhere it occupied during the Six-Day War (1967) and return to its former borders, establishing lasting peace between the two nations and ending conflicts in Palestinian territories.
To illustrate the implementation of the two-state solution, let's imagine how Jerusalem would look: Israeli soldiers have withdrawn from the gates of Al-Aqsa, and control is entirely in the hands of Muslims. The "Wailing Wall," called by Jews, is also under Muslim control. Inside the walls of Jerusalem, Jews have returned all properties they took over using various methods to Muslims. The Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem has been completely dismantled, and the spaces have returned to their former owners. Dozens of Jewish schools and educational institutions established with the occupation have been closed. The Jewish population inside the walls has been expelled, and Muslims from before the occupation have taken their places. Burials in newly established Jewish cemeteries around the Mount of Olives have ceased. Jewish occupiers in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan neighborhoods have withdrawn, leaving the spaces to Muslims.
A careful examination of history and geography will reveal that Israel has tried and will continue to try every means not to accept the "two-state solution." Because the series of transformations I tried to describe above, even in its apparent form, will end Israel's presence in Palestinian territories. For Israel to accept the two-state solution means the exhaustion of its power and the beginning of its collapse. Israel's state mind, well aware of this truth, has set the Judaization of Jerusalem and its surroundings, filling the West Bank with occupying Jewish settlements, and thus making the return to the "pre-1967 borders" physically and practically impossible as its primary goal.
Jerusalem, by its nature, is an unshareable city. As throughout history, when power dynamics lean one way or another, the ownership of the city will shift accordingly. When it comes to Jerusalem, what is written and drawn on paper or the lofty sentences uttered in political speeches lose all their impact in the face of the harsh realities of the field.
