The Two-State Solution Doesn’t Solve Anything

[Violet_Crumble]

The two-state solution has welcomed two converts. In recent weeks, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, have indicated they now accept what they had long rejected. This nearly unanimous consensus is the surest sign to date that the two-state solution has become void of meaning, a catchphrase divorced from the contentious issues it is supposed to resolve. Everyone can say yes because saying yes no longer says much, and saying no has become too costly. Acceptance of the two-state solution signals continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle by other means.

Bowing to American pressure, Mr. Netanyahu conceded the principle of a Palestinian state, but then described it in a way that stripped it of meaningful sovereignty. In essence, and with minor modifications, his position recalled that of Israeli leaders who preceded him. A state, he pronounced, would have to be demilitarized, without control over borders or airspace. Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and no Palestinian refugees would be allowed back to Israel. His emphasis was on the caveats rather than the concession.

As Mr. Netanyahu was fond of saying, you can call that a state if you wish, but whom are you kidding?

As for Hamas, recognition of the state of Israel has always been and remains taboo. Until recently, the movement had hinted it might acquiesce to Israel’s de facto existence and resign itself to establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. This sentiment has now grown from hint to certitude.

President Obama’s June address in Cairo provoked among Hamas leaders a mixture of anticipation and apprehension. The American president criticized the movement but did not couple his mention of Hamas with the term terrorism, his recitation of the prerequisites for engagement bore the sound of a door cracked open rather than one slammed shut, and his acknowledgment that the Islamists enjoyed the support of some Palestinians was grudging but charitable by American standards. All of which was promising but also foreboding, prompting reflection within the Hamas movement over how to escape international confinement without betraying core beliefs.

The result of this deliberation was Hamas’s message that it would adhere to the internationally accepted wisdom — a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967, the year Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas also coupled its concession with caveats aplenty, demanding full Israeli withdrawal, full Palestinian sovereignty and respect for the refugees’ rights. In this, there was little to distinguish its position from conventional Palestinian attitudes.

The dueling discourses speak to something far deeper than and separate from Palestinian statehood. Mr. Netanyahu underscores that Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state — and recalls that the conflict began before the West Bank or Gaza were occupied. Palestinians, in turn, reject recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, uphold the refugees’ rights and maintain that if Israel wants real closure, it will need to pay with more than mere statehood.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6268&l=1

[The Magistrate]

1. An Interesting Article, Ma'am

It is true enough that at a certain level the establishment of a state of Arab Palestine alongside Israel would not solve the conflict between the peoples. It is a fact that the narratives of the peoples are irreconcilable, and that has been the root of the thing from its beginning.

But it remains the case, in my view, that establishment of a state of Arab Palestine, and that a true, fully sovereign state like any other on this earth, is an essential element of bringing the conflict to a close.

What is necessary above all is for an end to violence between the peoples, whether the overt use of weapons, the theft of land, or verbal threat and declaration of undying enmities. Absent continual new aggravation, people on both sides could learn to co-exist, and cultivate their own gardens, as the saying goes. People do not have to like one another, or agree on much of anything, to do this. Given the actual situation at present, a degree of economic symbiosis would necessarily come into being that it would be against the personal interests of a great proportion of both peoples to upset.

The verdict of the gun, that court to which both sides made appeal, handed down in '48, is something both are simply going to have to live with.

"A nation is a group of people united by a mistaken view of history, and hatred of their neighbors."

[aranthus]

2. "It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel."

I and many others have long said that the conflict has always been about the existence of Israel as Jewish state, and not about the existence of a Palestinian state. Israel has always been split between those who hoped for acceptance from the Arab/Muslim world, and those who thought that acceptance would never come. Netanyahu is one of the latter. The caveats he places on Palestinian statehood are there because he believes that creation of such a state would not end the conflict, but only change the status of it.

I don't know if he's wrong or right, but there is only one way for Israel to find out. That is to pull out and let the Palestinians have their state. Either peace will take hold, or else there will be one last war.

[pelsar]

4. D/p

[aranthus]

11. Forgive my ignorance, but what does this mean?

[pelsar]

22. d/p means

double post....it means the computer had a glitch and instead of editing my post, it duplicated it ...i then edited it and put in the d/p

[pelsar]

5. no..that won't work either....

but there is only one way for Israel to find out. That is to pull out and let the Palestinians have their state. Either peace will take hold, or else there will be one last war.

who is taking the risk?..what are the odds of war or peace?..who will govern the westbank..fatah who just declared all of israel, theirs? or hamas as they took over gaza and also declared all of israel theirs?...or perhaps this anti hamas group in gaza (i forgot their name)..even more extreme than hamas,.....perhaps they will govern....


what are the percentages of this non named Palestinian group that will choose peace with israel if israel pulls out, and will govern, "re-educate' the Palestinian population that living along side israel is in fact acceptable....

and if they fail.....

it wouldn't be a "last war" but the beginning of a series of new mini wars....i.e. S.Lebanon and Gaza for examples........

[aranthus]

14. I think it's the only thing that can.

What is standing in the way of resolving the issue (not necessarily peace) is the Israeli Hope camp--the people who cling to the idea that some day the Arab/Muslim world will somehow grow to accept a Jewish state in its midst. Maybe they're right. Maybe it could happen. Here is what won't happen. 1. Acceptance is not going to come as long as Israel keeps the Palestinians under the boot. The "re-education" that you seek, if it ever comes, will not even start until after the Israelis withdraw. 2. The Palestinians aren't going to just give up and accept the status quo. 3. The Palestinians aren't going to give up and move away. 4. The Arab/Muslim world is not going to just forget about them. 5. The status quo can not continue indefinitely.

If nothing is done to change the equation, then there will be another inconclusive war (the worst kind), and then another. And the Occupation will continue to sap Israel's strength. If there is going to be another war, I'd rather it be decisive.

A peace agreement may not truly bring peace, but it will sharpen the issue. If Israel withdraws and a peace agreement is signed, then the Israelis will treat the next war, large or small as the last war. They will have to because further attacks will signal once and for all that the Arab/Muslim world will not actually accept Israel, and that it's war to the death. The Arabs will know that as well. That knowledge may be enough for peace to take hold. Or it may not.

Is Israel the only country in this scenario that is taking a risk? Sure. Is it a sizable risk? Absolutely. But so is the status quo.

[shira]

17. pelsar is right, that cannot work

the world simply won't allow Israel to end this conflict if a new Hamastan or Fatahland declares war on Israel. Just as Israel was not allowed to finish off Hamas or Hezbollah, Israel won't be allowed to do the same to a future state of Palestine that wages war on Israel. Besides, how do you think Israel will finish off anything with Syria, S.Arabia and Iran still at war with Israel? It's always been a regional conflict, not just one between Israelis and Palestinians. All that will change with a new Hamastan/Fatahland is that human bombs and rockets will be MUCH closer to population centers like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and that's not a very appealing situation.

Realize that many westerners want Israel ended due to the hopelessness of the situation. The thinking is that it's best and definitely more simple to appease the Arab and Muslim states by sacrificing Israel than to try and maintain a Jewish state there. Then, "all our troubles" with radical Islam will be solved, or so the thinking goes.

[pelsar]

23. reality says differently.....

the status quo is not really a risk.....on one hand its always changing, be it because of israel, or the Palestinians (gaza/hamas) or some other state or non state actor (hizballa/iran)....but it certainly can go on.

there wont be any "war to the death" because that would mean israel would actually have to carpet bomb arab cities...which btw, israel doesn't have enough bombs for......nor would israeli pilots have the stomach for random bombing, there would be a revolt in the IDF for such actions.

the IDF can win wars against arab armies but not against an insurgency with the Palestinian population, this has long been accepted by israel and the IDF.

the real solution?
1. Acceptance is not going to come as long as Israel keeps the Palestinians under the boot. The "re-education" that you seek, if it ever comes, will not even start until after the Israelis withdraw

I disagree....and infact its the Palestinians only hope......they had it during intifada I....so it can be done, they just need the leadership to do it again....and its all up to them (and their friends, if they really have any). Without that, they're not going to get the Israelis on their side, that they need, to remove the settlements. They had an incredible chance with Gaza, now that they "blew that" and destroyed the "land for peace" theory, they've got a lot to make up for......

and one small comment:
The Arab/Muslim world is not going to just forget about them. i think its been pretty clear by now that the arabs/muslims really dont give a shit about the Palestinians..the second they lose their "usefulness" for the arab govts, and they're on their own.....and they stop getting "fed" with weapons etc, the war will come to a screaching halt...but that won't happen as they're way too important as cannon fodder for the arab govts and others.

[subsuelo]

3. It's already a single state

Israel has for years kept stealing more and more and more, and now, due to this ongoing theft, the borders are too difficult for anybody to decide upon. What we have now is a single state, with two large reservation camps for the indigenous Palestinian population.

Once we all wake up and recognize this, we can move along to the next step and get serious about solving the crisis between the two people.

There is no two-state option left any more - it's too late.

[Lakrosse]

6. "Palestinians" are not

"indigenous." Most of them were emigrees from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt when Zionism came and made the desert into something.

Also, the Palestinian Arabs did have a two state option, and rejected it continuously, in 1937, 1947, 2000, up to today.

[pelsar]

7. actually the numbers are unknown...

whereas there was an immigration of arabs from the surrounding states as the jews immigrated and developed the economy....the census of the time were very very unclear....its really impossible to know just how many of the arabs in the 1920's were in fact immigrants or multi generational.

There are however arab villages in israel known for their arab immigration and its inhabitants are still considered "coming from those countries"...(generally considered a lower class by arabs who have deeper roots)

[The Magistrate]

8. You Cannot Possibly Mean, Sir, For That First Part To Be Taken Seriously....

"Every time he speaks, he subtracts from the sum of human knowledge."

[LeftishBrit]

9. Wow

There are SOME immigrants from neighbouring Arab countries - but do you really think NO Palestinians were there before the Zionists?

[aranthus]

12. It doesn't help to overstate the case,

especially because your second sentence is accurate. But the first sentence isn't. Some Palestinians were recent immigrants, but as Pelsar has already post, the number isn't known.

[Vegasaurus]

10. There is no single state of Jews and Arabs living together in Israel either

Once we all wake up and recognize this, we can move along to the next step and get serious about solving the crisis between the two people.

[oberliner]

13. Yugoslavia was a single state

Now there are five different states where that one state once stood.

It is never too late.

[The Magistrate]

19. Not Really A Good Example, Sir

Prior to the creation of Yugoslavia after the Great War, that area comprised a number of separate states, of long-standing existence. Yugoslavia during its brief existence was never stable: before World War Two it was marked by civil strife between Serbs and Croats, which reached the pitch of assassination of its first monarch; its entry into World War Two was marked by a coup and civil war between those two elements prior to the arrival of the Germans; partisan resistance was as much civil war among groups resisting the Germans and Italians as it was directed against the occupiers; Tito held the place in a sort of dynamic equilibrium by continual application of 'sweets and the whip' to the various ethnic bodies his state contained. Its disintegration after his death was simply the re-assertion of the natural condition of the area, before the ill-fated Wilsonian experiment....

[oberliner]

20. Thank you for your information

The only point I wish to establish is that the mere statement: "There already is one state" does not in and of itself imply that it is "too late" for a two-state solution.

Edit to add:

To clarify, I do not understand why some have taken to use that particular rejoinder when anyone wishes to discuss whether a one or two state solution would be the best option. It seems a non-sequitor at best.

[The Magistrate]

21. The Reason For That Non-Sequitor, Sir

Is that it suits a certain political and debating line to maintain that both the areas under Israeli occupation authority, plus Gaza, and Israel itself, should all be regarded as one entity now, since this allows free play to be made with charges of apartheid, and renders on demographic grounds any identity of Israel as a Jewish state untenable.

[aranthus]

15. It's never too late.

Yugoslavia split up. So did Czechoslovakia. Even if there really is one state in Israel/Palestine, there are two separate nations. A split is the only workable solution, because a true bi-national state is an impossibility.

[shira]

16. sorry subsuelo, but that's just not true

Since the mid 90's, Israel has all but frozen new settlement construction (expansion outside settlements existing prior to mid 90's). The 2008 Olmert deal that Abbas rejected was a 100% offer extremely similar but even better than the offer made at Taba 2000, and being a 100% solution it's obvious what was offered was contiguous.

It's simply false to assert it's either too late or that there cannot be a two-state option anymore.

[LeftishBrit]

18. I disagree that such things are ever 'too late'

The British Empire broke up after a length of time ranging up to over 200 years for some of its colonies.

The Soviet Union broke up after 70 years.

Germany reunified after over 40 years.

It's never 'too late' for changing state boundaries, or creating new states. You just need enough people to *want* to do it.

[Vegasaurus]

24. This is true

but since the Israelis will never agree to a single state, there is no point for people to continue discussing this as if it is any sort of option.

It isn't.