All of the countries of the world, including those with a permanent membership at the Security Council, declare their support of the two-state solution. Yet this solution, of which Israel has also declared its approval, has not moved an inch, despite all attempts and efforts exerted, despite the long time these efforts have taken, and despite the pledges of the US sponsor and of members of the Quartet on the Middle East (the European Union, Russia, the US and the United Nations). It is no great discovery to say that Israel is the one obstructing negotiations for this solution, setting conditions and taking unilateral measures to prevent it from being implemented, while at the same time blackmailing the United States for concessions at the expense of the Palestinians, and extorting aid and pledges from Washington in the name of obtaining guarantees of peace. The latest round of negotiations, hosted by Washington, sums up the predicament in which Israel places the supporters of the two-state solution in the world, especially the United States. Indeed, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after her direct talks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as her video conference with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, was unable to announce anything new that would indicate the possibility of breaching the crisis of the negotiations having stopped, not to mention the agenda of the negotiations and what they could reach in terms of permanent solution issues. Observers all agree that Netanyahu has, after the US Congress midterm elections, become stronger and more confident in confronting Washington's intentions of encouraging the two-state solution, and subsequently driving towards making the Palestinians bear all the costs of any peace process, whether in terms of their independent sovereign state, the borders of such a state or its other attributes. On the background of this ongoing predicament in the peace process, and with Israel speeding up the unilateral measures it has been taking, especially settlement-building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority seems to be in a situation that is becoming increasingly difficult with the passing of time. The PA may have felt this predicament strongly reflecting upon it, which explains the talk of other options, apart from negotiating with Israel. Such talk has thus started growing and meeting with approval at the Arab level. It is clear so far that such options are sought to remain under the umbrella of international legitimacy, relying on resolutions issued by the United Nations in this regard. They waver between turning to the Security Council and the UN General Assembly, and between unilaterally declaring the establishment of the state and demand that it be recognized. Yet all such options will in the end reach the same predicament. Indeed, neither can UN General Assembly resolutions force Israel to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territories, as the facts concerning past resolutions in this respect assert, nor can the PA obtain binding resolutions from the Security Council, in light of US rejection of any resolution Israel opposes. And even if such a resolution were to be issued by the Security Council without Washington exercising its right of veto, it would still be unable to achieve its purpose unless coupled with measures that would force Israel to accept and implement it. And that is something unimaginable at the present time. And if the talk of new options is a political maneuver, it does not fool anyone. Thus these other options appear to the Palestinian Authority, and to the Arabs, like new predicaments to be added to the current one – especially if they are not coupled with serious domestic choices that would gather the sources of strength of the Palestinians, in such a way as to be able to reorganize their priorities.
