The Two-State "Solution" is No Solution
Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel from 1992-1995, understood that unless the Palestinians were allowed self-determination and given a viable State, Israel would lose its future as a home solely for Jews. To make matters much worse, Israel's survival would always be threatened by its neighbors.
His untimely death, at the hands of a fundamentalist Israeli assassin, never allowed Rabin to lead the country toward a two state solution with a future devoid of relentless war. In fact, his death marked the beginning of the end of the Israeli ideal of a theocratic state.
Rabin, probably due to his military past, knew that the only way forward was to choose peace over a never-ending cycle of hostilities. Despite his wisdom, scores of people still think that the 50-plus year cycle of violence is the only answer. Yet, an "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" only perpetuates a downward spiral, leading to more bloodshed and death.
The Obama Administration knows this, and has started a process by which Israel can live at peace with its neighbors and Palestinians can be assured that, as the U.S. Secretary of State Clinton said, "a child has the same rights in Gaza as children in the rest of the world." She also stated that the U.S. will vigorously pursue a two-state solution every step of the way and underscored that there is no time to waste. While this reinvigorated U.S. engagement is welcome, unfortunately the declaration is too little, too late.
All parties have wasted precious time and the current situation on the ground does not allow independence for either party. The past eight years of American policy, or lack there of, also contributed to false hopes.
After President Clinton's thwarted effort to achieve peace, the Bush Administration had a very nice ceremony with Jordan's King Abdullah in Israel and then another in Annapolis only to sit by as the prospects for peace dwindled. Any engagement was merely a facade to demand that the Palestinians and other regional players proclaim unwavering support for all policies implemented by Israel no matter the cost, which only made matters worse.
As the regional conflict went on -- war with Lebanon, bombing Syria, borders cordoned off, rockets fired by Hamas, and the devastating destruction and humanitarian disaster in Gaza -- the United States stayed silent, except when it came to removing a democratically elected Hamas. Each incident generating more tension.
While Israel did declare a unilateral ceasefire after the latest violent exchange, without Palestinian agreement I might add, both are still lobbing lethal weapons at each other. The Palestinians are launching crude missiles at Israel (18 in the first two days of Clinton's visit), and Israelis continue to drop bombs on the Palestinian border with Egypt.
And if all this wasn't enough, Israel has ramped up its settlement activity over the past year. The Israeli-based group Peace Now recently reported that settlement construction in the West Bank has accelerated, despite a lack of permits or clearance to build on what's considered Palestinian land. In 2008, settlements increased by 57% from 2007 according to Peace Now.
The sad truth is that the Israelis and Palestinians are locked in an endless war for a land they both call their own. Both parties believe God gave the land to them. (Maybe God did and they both need to share it).
The "Two-State" rhetoric currently being pushed by the U.S. and its international allies neither ensures Israeli security or Palestinian self-determination. Much to everyone's dismay, their destinies are intertwined. Israelis have not, and will not, allow Palestinians to govern their own borders, airspace or -- as history has shown -- democratic process. The only solution is for the two groups to work and live together.
Perhaps there was a chance for two states during the time of Rabin, when settlements were few and the road map was open. Today, those opportunities are gone. Even Netanyahu, who will be the next Israeli Prime Minister, refuses to discuss a Palestinian State, which only moves us closer creating to a single state and making it an undeniable solution.
The idea is a very hard pill to swallow. A warring past is not easy to forget. Israelis and Palestinians will have to work together to resolve a mound of grievances and heal decades' worth of wounds. But continually living in a "he did / she did mode" will help no one. Only pragmatic steps will lay the foundation for positive change.
A new, democratic and inclusive, Israel could be a symbol of a new way. Clinton mentioned that we cannot afford more delays or regrets... and it is time to look ahead. Specifically, the parties must pledge to renounce war, violence, segregation, displacement and the mistreatment of each other.
Finally, the Secretary pointed out that, "we need progress that will improve the lives and the livelihoods of the people of Gaza and the West Bank, the people of Israel, and the neighbors throughout the region." That means Israelis and Palestinians must work side by side as one. Unless, that is, everyone prefers more war or wants to try moving more than 460,000 Israeli settlers from what is supposed to be the future Palestine. I assure you that will not be pretty.
Upon visiting Israel anyone can see that there is no use trying to separate what already exists together. Palestinians and Israelis are clearly intertwined making a two state solution no longer a probably or a possible solution at all.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
ctd
And we the American people fight two world wars to establish an Empire (at least THIS American, and many others are opposed to empire- especially when our wn government ats like one)
What our goal was in WWII particularly, was to rid the world of tyranny and establish the principle of Human Rights and liberties (see the UN Charter)
It's all happened in fits and starts, and we're hardly a perfect nation.
but if Vickster or anyone here wants to tell me that the Palestinians (or the Israelis) DON"t have the rights enumerated in the Declaration--I'd like to know which ones --and why.
Because it's certainly true that the Palestinians are being deprived of their rights (and i'm not talking about terrorists tried by a jury of their peers and imprisoned through due process--)
In one of the threads below, i made a comment about the rights of teh Palestinians --and i referenced the US Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowedby their creator with certain UNALIENABLE (my emphasis) rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now Vickster argued that I couldn't apply the US Constitution to the Israelis and the Palestinians.
THe thread was getting small, so i'm starting a new one to make this point, because I believe it an important one.
First, as I've quoted above (and in the thread below) I was not quoting the US Constittion--but the US Declaration of Independence--a VERY different document-- one presented to the ENTIRE world.
Jefferson was asserting (as self-evident, by the way) as am I,that these rights ARE universal--they apply to EVERY HUMAN BEING-- (and if you follow Jefferson's argument, by the way, when a government becomes destructive of those rights -- ANYWHERE-- it is the RIGHT and DUTY of the people to ALTER OR ABOLISH IT.
I'll grant that we still have a gap between ideal and reality-- we strive to close that gap
But I'll also argue that much of human history since the Enlightenment has been a struggle (often violent) for the recognition of those rights.
ctd
anyone that advocates a one state solution is also advocating there clear misunderstanding of the region, the people and history. Israel has turned there land into a prosperous state that is a leader in technology and innovation through out the world. They did this against odds that all countries could never dream of. Now you just want to open the boarders and let the jews become demographically underwhelmed in there own country? I implore the writer of this article to visit the region, visit palestinians and visit Israelies. Both just want to live in peace in there own state run by there own people, as both have a right to. To suggest that everyone intergrate is hugely insulting to all parties involved.
Hi Max,
I've been to the area (it was quite some time ago -- and a lot has changed)-- as an American I am not trying to dictate a one state or two state solution.
The problem that is putting a "time limit" on a two state possiblity is the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East jerusalem--that continiue to grow and expand, and with them, the web of roads and checkpoints that cut off the Palestinian towns and villages from each other, and finally the Wall, which i don't need to tell you (if you've been to the region) isn't being built on the GreenLine, but DEEP inside the west Bank.
The Settlers like to call these things "facts on the ground" and hope to make a Palestinian state impossible by creating so many of these "facts" that it will be a herculean task to untangle them.
If the Palestinians are to have their state, it's got to be somewhere, and it sure can't be limited to Gaza-- it's got to be enough land to be viable and it's got to be contiguous.
As I'v said to Jezreel below, the choie is really up to Israel--and she can't defer it any longer.
Remember, no one FORCED israel to start building all these setlements on the West Bank after the 67 war.
This mess is mostly Israel's own making (not entirely--the Palestinians do share a part of the blame--but they're not in a position of dominance.
Israel's economic success is a parasitic one: they've destroyed the economies of several Arab neighbours and they built their nation on American tax dollars.
Palestinians went from Turkish occupation to British Occupation to Zionist terrorism to Israeli occupation -- if all of you foreigners would just leave those poor people alone to develop their nation and stop killing, invading and ethnically cleansing them, they'll develop their nation as they see fit. And that doesn't mean strip malls and materialism, they have the right to be whatever national identity they want.
At the beginning of the 20th century, conflicts between Arabs (85%) and Jews (15%) who lived lived in Palestine were unheard of; even when the latter were encouraged to migrate there, Arabs (68%) and Jews (32%) still led a pacific coexistence, until the creation of the state of Israel.
So, there's no reason why they can't do it now. The two-state solution has been rendered unviable by Israel itself who thought that, by creating a particularly desperate situation on the ground, they would rid themselves of the Palestinians and keep all 45% of land that had been allocated to them.
The thing is, nobody is going anywhere - Israelis or Palestinians, so the only solution is a one bi-national state with a common constitution guaranteeing the rights of both ethnic groups.
Will Israel lose its Jewish majority? Sure, but that has always been the reality then as it is now. Just as this grand experiment into trying to turn a tribe into a nation-state hasn't been that successful, neither will the attempts at keeping it artificially "pure".
The sooner all involved realize that their future is intertwined, the sooner they can actually work towards their children's future, instead of sabotaging it.
israel did it with handouts . . . without aid from the EU, the US and big business israel would be like its neighours . . . israel is systematically stealing land that belongs to the Palestinians . . .israel breaks international law every day with the continued building of illegal settlements, its berlin-style wall, it keeps the Palestinians locked in a ghetto . . . and let us not forget the 3 weeks of killing launched by israel in January . . . 1300 Palestinians dead, their infra-stucture wiped out . . . that is what I would see if I visited Gaza . . . meawhile back in israel . . .life is conducted on US/European lines . only a one-state solution is viable otherwise we will have more of the same carnage we have been witnessing . . . .. . . .
Both people have a right to national self-determination. Israelis have, for the most part, recognized this from the very beginning. The Arab [arties have, for the most part, rejected this from the very beginning, and it is that rejectionist stance that keeps the conflict burning.
One cannot be heard to complain that one is being denied the right to self-governance when one insists that upon obtaining such one will use it to deny that same right to one's neighbors. Yet that is precisely the stance that the Palestinians have taken, as expressed in the PLO's "Phased Plan" and in the Hamas Charter (don't take my word on it, look these things up for yourself).
There can be no two-state solution so long as there is one party that does not agree to settle the conflict on that basis. Yet, no one can or will force a "one state solution" on the Israelis, nor should the be held responsible to impliment such a "solution". They have the right of self-determination, like all other peoples, and those who contemplate denying them that right need to do some thinking as to why they think that Israelis, unlike everyone else, should be denied that right.
When are you going to confront people like Bubba and nochaos then, who routinely deny that Palestinians have a right to self governance?
Sorry, I haven't read their comments in that regard yet. If you'd care to point them out, I'd be happy to respond, because that is a point on which I am quite insistent.
For Hamas, living in a glass house means throwing stones, for their job is to bring suffering to their community. Then, Patricia DeGennaro and others can do their part to help the cause.
Hamas isn't living in a glass house, they're living in a prison cell with a door that never opens.
Don't know too many prisons in which you can import rockets and shoot them at innocent people. Maybe you are familiar with different prisons than I am, on the other hand, maybe you're use of metaphors is a little too self-serving.
My Father was there in 1943 the country was Palestine the citizens were Christian
Muslim and Jewish they looked like the same ethnic group.
The region may have been called "Palestine" but there was never a country called "Palestine". And, in 1943, the word "Palestinian" was used to refer to Jews, not Arabs.
First Zionists make the word anti-Semitic exclude any non-Jewish Semitic people, and now you're trying to make the word Palestinian exclude most of the Palestinian ethnic group? Is there anything you won't pilfer?
"The region may have been called "Palestine" but there was never a country called "Palestine". And, in 1943, the word "Palestinian" was used to refer to Jews, not Arabs."
Another case of historical revisionism.
This would have come to as a surprise to the zionists who referred to arabs as palestinians and native in their speeches and writings.
"The idea is a very hard pill to swallow."
Not at all Ms. DeGennaro, the realities on the ground already have a de facto one state, under a flag that does not represent the majority of the people with a minority ruling over them.
Palestinians have never said god gave them the land, they have been their for thousands of years.
Got that?
It's the ancestral home of palestinians whether they are jews, muslim or chirstians. Some Israelis like Uri Davis refer to themselves as hebrew palestinians.
I understand what you are trying to say. I consider my self an arab and a hebrew. I don't consider myself a zionist. As things stand today, Israel exist as a vibrant, multi-ethnic society. Even though it is a new country, the majority of non-jewish arabs living there are 3rd of 4th generation Israelis who speak fluent hebrew, are law abiding citizens and are largely influenced by Hebrew culture. I would like to see Israel as bi-national demcratic state with equal rights for all its citizens. I would like all ethnic and religious designation to be non-existent for all israeli citizens. Israel will lose it's jewish majority, I understand, I don't see israel surviving any other way. No country can survive relying on military force and oppression alone.
My Father was there in 1943 the country was Palestine the citizens were Christian
Muslim and Jewish they looked like the same ethnic group.
Many of us have watched this sad conflict over our entire lifetimes. How much worse for families in the thick of it. It is in the US national interest to have peace in this part of the world. If there is no peace, there will continue to be turmoil and festering problems in the entire region. It is in everyone's interest to have peace. So what can people who support peace do to promote such peace here in the US?
Although I agree with this article, I do not agree with the following statement:
"Both parties believe God gave the land to them"
It's the jewish people that believe God gave them this land. The Palestinians are the indgenious people here, the majority of jews, especially the orthodox jews, that had been living in palestine for hundreds of years were agianst a secular, socialist and colonial zionist movement.
thank you msfsi . . . you are so right . . . and it was the zionists who said god gave them the land . . . not all Jews are zionists and my Jewish friends in the UK say that the existence of israel is contrary to the Torah . . .
I think one of the biggest obstacles to a one-state solution . . which is the only viable solution at this point are the AIPAC and the US Congress .. specifically feinstein, schumer, lieberman and of course the israeli zionists . . . there is a fledgling peace movement in israel that knows that israel as it is currently constituted cannot long endure.
There is a peace movement, yes...but most peace movements in Israel support a two state solution, as do most Israelis and most Jews around the world. Even most Palestinians support a two state solution at this point. You should check out OneVoice.
Eretz Israel has always been interepretted in judaism as the promise G-d gave the jews. The heredi objection to zionism is based upon the contradiction between classical judaism and secular zionism. According to traditional interpretations of the talmud the existence of jews in exile is a religious obligation intended to expiate the sins that caused g-d to exile them. Among the oaths that G-d imposed on the jews are that as a group should not massively emigriate to Palestine before the coming of the messiah. The importance of jerusalem for early zionists was second to Tel Aviv, which they saw as the capital of the zionist enterprise because Jerusalem was considered a bastion of ultra-orthodox opposition to zionism.
I also think its a generational problem. I believe the younger generation is more open-minded to the idea on both sides than the older generation, but the older generation is in power. It will take time.... But the notion of a One-State Solution won't be taboo anymore.
My feelings exactly; I agree with the article, except for the suggestion that palestinian Muslims and Christians have been claiming the land because it's written somewhere in a holy scripture that God promised it to them.
They claim it because it's been their home for generations.
In reality, almost no one in the area can be called "indigenous", the population living in the area has shifted numerous times since late antiquity, and quite a few of the people in the area moved there during the rule of the Ottomans.
All of which is quite besides the point, since human rights are not predicated on indigenosity.
Moral relativism being your refuge, huh?
This is the sort of argument made popular in 80s by shoddy works of supposed scholarly research such as From Time Immemorial. This book was not taken seriously by any historian of the Middle East, and was largely ignored in Israel. This sort of tripe is still circulated in ardently pro-zionist websites.
The only non-indeginous people in the region was were the jews from Europe.
Finally, realism is starting to emerge on this issue.
ironically, the settlements intended to extend Israel's borders have created an intermixed zone, from which the Israeli settlers will never be extracted, except after a civil war won by the "two state" side.
Unlikely, at best.
A growing number of israelis are beginning to openly discuss ethnic cleansing -- moving the Arabs out of Israel. Their new "kingmaker" is very close to this idea. The fact is that the Arab population is increasing so fast, it might take 50-60 years at a rate that wouldn't trigger armed conflict. Not much relief here.
Faster? You have to solve some practical problems. Are these people expected to just show up and get into the trucks? Where do they go? Lebanon? Jordan? Syria? Turkey? How does the IDF manage a huge zone that will inevitably include forces from the "destination" nations, which will certainly mobilize -- initially to keep order among the refugees? talk about a tinderbox!
No, the only real solution is a single, democratic state that embraces all. Failing that, all Israel's neighbors and opponents need to do is wait. Palestinians under israeli occupation and in Lebanon continue to grow their numbers. Conflict will continue, and eventually israel will become uninhabitable by normal people, just fanatics.
A failed state with nukes, just like Pakistan, with only one nation backing its increasingly nutty population.
That's true; there 's one point that hardly ever touched in these discussions, which is the number of israelis who, through disenchantment, fear for their sons or sheer pragmatism, decide to leave Israel - especially those who hold dual nationality.
And then you have lower immigration due to :
1. The Jewish communities around the world being well-integrated in their countries of origin;
2. lager number of jewish people marrying outside the community,
3. Increasing lack of identification with/idealization of Israel, particularly in the face of its policies towards the Palestinians;
So, Jewish demographic dynamics combined with the high birth rate among Arabs makes the one-state solution not a question of if, but rather of when.
Right.
I've even seen "warnings" from ethnocentric Jewish organizations in the US that tolerance is bad for Jewish survival, too much risk of intermarriage! Do they prefer persecution? Possibly, the perpetual crisis in Israel certainly builds ethnic solidarity. I suspect there's an AIPAC task force trying to figure out how to stimulate just enough anti-Semitism to unite Jews without going over the top.
If one looks at the fate of the Zoroastrians or the ongoing shriveling of the Japanese nation, one can see the destiny of people who want to remain "pure." Diversity is not a slogan, it's biologically and culturally healthy.
The more we intermix and influence each other, the better and more alive will our culture be, and the healthier we will be as a species. Humans are descendants of about 2,000 people, and our relatively limited biological diversity is a potential problem, just like those zoo-bred animals.
In the long run, as you say, younger ambitious Israelis are going to realize that they can do very well, and face no Inquisitions or other bugaboos from the past, in the advanced nations of the world. The old "virtues" of the shtetl -- isolation, hostility from surrounding people, diseases of inbreeding -- will fade away.
"The idea is a very hard pill to swallow." Not at all Ms. DeGennaro, the realities on the ground already have a de facto one state, under a flag that does not represent the majority of the people with a minority ruling over them.
A single state solution is the only reasonable one, with full right of return for the Palestinian diaspora.
This is as likely as a two-state solution. So is the world supposed to accept apartheid?
It has accepted for decades, offering only mild rebukes on occasion.
I propose a 23 state solution; 22 Arab dictatorships and one Jewish democracy. The West Bank can be reattached to Jordan and the Jewish settlers can apply for citizenship from Jordan. Gaza can be reattached to Egypt and the 1.5 million people penned in there (by Egypt) should be given Egyptian citizenship.
The dream of an independent Palestinian state is over. It went on life support when Arafat walked away from Camp David and died when Hamas showed Israel what Palestinians would do with a state (hint: it wasn't nation building).
viable
If that isn't hypocrisy, Israelis telling anyone else they don't have a right to independent statehood.
This writer is not making a demand, he/she is making a proposal. IN simpler terms, he/she is amking a suggestion. NOt one I agree with at all, but it is just a suggestion. My question for you is this, why do you always distort what others write rather than respond to what they have actually written?
I'm going to tey again--i thin my response got lost in the aether--
Frist, Egypt and jordan would NEVER agree to what you are suggesting--They have agreed to the right of self-determination of the Palestinians (It's in the Israeli Egyptian Peace Agreement and Jordan ceded any claim to teh West Bank in the mid-80's I believe)
As to your second point on Arafat 'walking away" from a two -state solution, The reason he walked is that he wasn't offered a two state solution.
Under the agreement that you are talking about, Palestine would have had no contriol over its airspace, ocean, ports, airports, borders, water--inshort the very things a state needs to BE a SOVEREIGN STATE.
There isn't a nation on earth that would agree to such limitations.
"Jewish Democracy" -that is an oxymoron - while there are various dictionary definitions of democracy, one in accordance with American ideals is that all people are entitled to vote and be a part of the government and society regardless of their race or religion.
It is undisputed that Israel controls every part of the life of the 2.3 million Palestinians in the West Bank - it should be "One person, one vote" for those people who live under occupation without representation - an occupation that has lasted over 40 years.
For those who say it must remain a "Jewish State" please explain to me why as an American I should send my tax dollars to support a country that supports discrimination against those who are not the right race and religion? America is over 75% Christian but we would never allow America to become a "Christian State" and permit discrimination against non-Christians (i.e, limit travel for non-Christians, provide less water allocations to non-Christians, restrict building permits for non-Christians as Israel does to non-Jews) -
Israel is about 75-80% Jewish, why shouldn't Israel be transformed into a real American democracy where all can be a part of society equally -it would be a beacon of hope and fairness for the region to emulate.
Before I step into the demographic landmine, I should point out that there are many countries that do have "established religions" and are still democacies.
The first example that comes to mind is the UK--which has the Church of England as it's Esablished Church, with teh Queen as it's Head.
She actually appoint the bishops (although in actuality the church recommends the candidates to the PM, who then sends them on to the Queen) These bishops actually sit in the house of Lords.
The church, however, exert little, if any, real power
So theoretically, your point is not correct-- Actually the Separation Clause was a US invention.
In Israel it gets even more different. Israel was not founded by religious Jews, but by non-religious, socialist Zionist Jews. (there were religious Jews involved, of course, but they were a minority--and still are today-- about 80% of israel's Jews aren't religious)
What drove Zionism was the active anti-Semitism in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Zionists believed that they wouldn't be safe until they had a naion of their own, where THEY were the majority (in every other country they had ALWAYS been a minority)
This is why most Israelis want a two state solution and fear a state where they would be an ethnic minority-- The holocaust is not a long ago memory for them--it's dominant in their psyche.
What an ignorant comment. First of all Lebanon is more of a Democracy than Israel ever dreams it will ever be, and that is even including Hezbollah in the government. Second of all, you group all the Arab countries as if they are all the same people. They aren't... They speak different dialects of Arabic, they have different cultures and they even interpret Islam differently. Pan-Arabism was a movement in the 50-60s that failed because of the differences. The dream of a Palestinian State will never die.
BRAVO almazza98!
Excellent reply. Much more eloquent and wise a response than I managed, certainly.
"First of all Lebanon is more of a Democracy than Israel ever dreams it will ever be..."
People writting comments like that are being deliberately ignorant of the facts.
Anyone calling hezbollah's Lebanon more of a democracy than Israel needs to do a little more reasearch than actually taking the anti-Israel propoganda at face value. Hassan Nazrallah the secretary general of hezbollah has openly called not only for the destruction of Israel, but Jews as a whole. Yet Muslim citizens of Israel contitute the country's largest religious minority at around 18%. These Muslims have more rights granted to them than any religious minority would have in any Arab country. The anti-Israel movement seems to make no mention of that, or of the fact that there was never any such country as "Palestine", in fact the last time the area in question was its own independent country was over 2000 years ago before the Roman Empire invaded it. That independent country was called Judea.
It's ironic that Peace Now's data on settlements is being used to discredit the notion of the two-state solution, given that Peace Now's efforts to track and stop settlement expansion is geared to allow a negotiated two-state solution to succeed.
Israelis and Palestinians don't want to live together in one state. Efforts to force them down that road will be not only frustrating, they will waste more precious time and lead to continued conflict. The time to support Obama's initiative to renew negotiations is now. www.peacen
Noam,
What should we Americans who are interested in peace be asking of our Reps and Senators (and of the Obama Adminisstration)?
I realize one voice alone might not make a difference, but I also know they keep track of what their constituents are saying.
I know that as things stand now, it's becoming more and more difficult, because of the increased settler building, to disentangle the two populations (and this article --which DOES lay out the problems very well, doesn't even mention those Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon (and other places outside Israel/Palestine)
The notion that it's difficult at all is a myth. The Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal and they're relatively new. The settlers will just have to move. They had no problem moving /to/ the illegal settlements on the spur of the moment.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
