Ex-Knesset speaker: Time for two-state solution running out

[subsuelo]

Former Knesset speaker Avraham (Avrum) Burg said on Wednesday that the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about to expire.

"The clock is ticking and the days of a viable two-state solution are numbered," Burg said during a conference in the Arab town of Baka al-Gharbiyeh.

Burg said that the preferable solution for him would be an Israeli-Palestinian federation, which will cater to the two nationalities living in the region, since it is "too small" to accommodate two states. He called on the Israelis to relinquish their sovereignty over the Temple Mount and on the Palestinians to give up the "practice of the Right of Return," and then establish a bi-national federation.

Haaretz - read more

[subsuelo]

1. Someone had an 'A-ha!' moment

My opinion is that we are past the point of no-return. A two-state solution is no longer viable.

It's too late. Time to wake up. Two state won't happen.

[Vegasaurus]

2. And neither will one state

Unless you are in favor of a bloody war.

[subsuelo]

3. I've not written a word about what I'm in favor of.

Just acknowledging the reality

[Vegasaurus]

4. You may well be right

that one state is a reality.

However, it isn't one that you can force, without a war.

If it happens with natural demographics, then so be it.

But the Israelis, at this time in 2008, are no more willing to accept a one state solution than to accept eternal war.

You have to understand that your positing about one state doesn't make it a current reality for the people who matter.

[subsuelo]

5. I understand the objections to one-state

For me the issue is more of dealing with the fact that it is now and is going to be one-state.

It's like global warming. I may not like it but my opinion doesn't change the facts. It's too late to go back to the conditions prior to global warming. The issue now is one of facing reality and asking the question - what are we going to do about it?

[Vegasaurus]

6. IT may be a fact to you, but it isn't a fact to those that matter

and they are the only people that matter.

So, while you can decide that you think it is a single state, the Israelis are not suicidal, and don't think it is.

It is and will continue to be a Jewish state, until things change demographically or politically.

So, your opinion means absolutely nothing, in this particular case.

[subsuelo]

9. Uh, yes it is a fact. That's the whole point - accepting the facts

It is one state. There are not two states. These are not difficult concepts. There is one state with a couple of large reservation camps. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. I'm sorry you have a problem with it. We'll never get anywhere without an acceptance of the facts. I just state what is.

[Vegasaurus]

10. The point is, that it ISN'T a fact

except in your mind.

And the only way, literally the only way, that your "fact" (opinion) will become a reality, is with a huge and bloody war.

The Palestinians have been trying to kill Jews for 60 years. Put them all together in one state with Jews and Arabs?

Are you insane?

I have a problem with civil war and bloodshed, and that is exactly what your "fact" would bring.

I will never accept civil war as an outcome. Sorry that you have a problem with that.

[subsuelo]

12. Yes, it is. There is one state. There are not two.

Why do you have such a problem accepting that?

[Vegasaurus]

13. Because your saying it is doesn't make it so

I can't beat you over the head, and of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

But you are not an Israeli, and I guarantee to you that they don't believe there is a single state, and it doesn't matter whether you are talking to right wingers, lefties or moderates.

No one is giving up Israel to murdering terrorists, which is exactly what your single state would do.

Are you insane, I ask again?

Perhaps this current situation will go on for some time, but THERE IS NO SINGLE STATE, because the ramifications of that, right now in mid-2008, make the violence we have seen thus far look like a walk in the park.

[subsuelo]

15. Wow it really is hard to accept, isn't it.

Let me help out with that:

Please count for me the number of states that exist in the region.

One? Or two?

(It can't be both)

[LeftishBrit]

7. At the present time, a 'one-state solution' will simply not work...

There would be violent civil war.

The only way that could be prevented is by international control. Firstly, the international community is probably not going to be able or willing to commit the resources; and secondly, even if it does, wouldn't that be just another form of colonialism?

The two reasons that I've heard for the 'inevitability' of a one-state solution are:

(1) Expanding settlements which 'cannot be reversed' for the establishment of a two-state solution. But they can be reversed. Settlements can be dismantled and settlers relocated (and those who settled after 1992 KNEW that this might happen, like it or not). It would be much better not to have the settlements in the first place - but they are not irreversible. Exactly the same argument on a much larger scale could have been used to declare the British Empire irreversible - but of course it *was* reversible.

(2) Demographic changes, resulting from a greater birthrate for Israeli Arabs than their Jewish counterparts. This might possibly result in a one-state solution in 30 years' time (or it may have some other result). If this happens in a natural way, fine; but it's not possible at present.

I'm not even against a one-state solution on abstract principle; I'm just against war, and right at the moment a one-state solution = war. Maybe one day things will be different. But not for quite a long time. A peaceful two-state solution is difficult, but possible. A peaceful one-state solution is (at least right now) impossible.

[subsuelo]

11. At the present time, *nothing* is working

I'm just getting a bit tired of all these politicians going around peddling their road maps and their talk about the future, when the reality is increasingly obvious - two state *is* either dead or dying and at some point if two state is *not* reached, then what will we be left with? That's right - the dreaded single state. All I am stating is my opinion that we have arrived at a dead two-state resolution (actually my opinion is we already passed that point some time ago).

At any rate let me ask you this - if two state is not dead yet, do you believe it is in fact dying with every passing day of settlement expansion and continued violence and a gridlocked process? At what point do you say ok you're right subsuelo - this thing is a dead process. How long do you continue to cling to a dream that just ain't gonna happen? That's my question.

At some point in this whole historic timeline you *have* to conclude that two-state just will not happen. Agreed on that much? The question simply is when do you arrive at that conclusion. I'm already there, that's all.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[subsuelo]

16. Thanks for not reading a word I wrote

and btw terrorists exist on both sides

[shira]

24. terrorists do exist on both sides

but realize the difference.

Terrorists are not tolerated by Israel. Their acts are illegal and offenders are incarcerated. Whereas the government of the Palestinians deliberately uses terrorism as their main tactic against the civilians (soft targets) of Israel. I believe when the Palestinian government starts acting seriously against terrorism within its own ranks, there will be peace - but not a moment sooner.

Do you agree?

[Violet_Crumble]

28. I don't agree at all...

I wasn't aware that the govt in the West Bank uses terrorism as a main tactic. In fact, I'm certain that they don't...

btw, the religious loony extremist settlers in Hebron do a fair bit of the terrorism thing, and I notice that the IDF is forced to 'protect' them. If the Israeli govt was serious about nipping their citizens terrorism in the bud, they'd drag all those ones in Hebron back to Israel and prosecute them...

[subsuelo]

31. Actually in my view the authorities on both sides are terrorists

Both use violent means to achieve political ends. That is terrorism. 'Tolerance' doesn't enter the equation for me. The authorities "tolerate" it because they are the ones doing it. On both sides.

[Vegasaurus]

25. I read your every word

It doesn't change the reality on the ground.

You can't put two warring peoples together and "make" them live together, happily ever after.

It isn't happening, at least not now.

What makes you think that this is even a remotely plausible idea, when Israelis cannot even deliver food and fuel TO the Palestinians, without risking their lives?

How on earth do you think they can all live together when the only thing that has kept Israelis from being blown up are walls and checkpoints?

Check the reality, not your fantasy.

[azurnoir]

17. Are you now claiming to be Israeli?

[LeftishBrit]

18. At some point in the historic timeline one had to accept...

that the British Empire would never end (after all, it took hundreds of years)

that the French Empire would never end

that the Soviet Union would never end - unless one got rid of Russia as such

that there would never be a peaceful solution to the Northern Ireland conflict

that women would never have the right to vote....

etc.

Except that one did NOT have to accept any of these; as all did happen in the end. Not soon enough but they happened.

With enough effort and commitment, a two-state solution CAN happen.

But if you want a one-state solution now- are you prepared to accept prolonged civil war and the deaths or expulsion of many on both sides? If not, how do you propose to prevent it, given that you consider both sides as too intransigent for a two-state solution.

Would you accept a return to some form of colonialism (probably by an international group)? That looks to me frankly like the BEST case scenario if one insists on a single-state solution now, in that it might be the only way to prevent absolute carnage under the circumstances. But wouldn't it be a regressive action and much worse for both Jews and Arabs than a two-state solution? And in any case, who's going to volunteer to police the powder-keg?

A one-state solution, right at the moment, seems like the opposite of a solution.

[subsuelo]

20. If two-state isnt dead

Do you acknowledge it is dying? (How can it not be with each passing day of continued colonial expansion)

[LeftishBrit]

22. 100 years ago: 'If independence of the British colonies isn't dead

Do you acknowledge it is dying? (How can it not be with each passing day of continued colonial expansion)'



A two-state solution can happen whenever people on both sides CHOOSE to have it happen, and are prepared to put in the effort and make the necessary sacrifices.

[subsuelo]

26. That is an awful analogy

The situation for Palestinians is one of a tiny amount of land which is being taken from them with each passing day. Taken from them - and given to Israelis instead. With that in mind, a two-state solution *is* either dying or dead. We are approaching the day when there simply won't be any sustainable amount left. And when that day comes - then what?

[LeftishBrit]

27. You are assuming that the land CANNOT be given back/redistributed

Why not?

Why is it easier to assume that the people concerned can live together in one state, than that all land decisions are irreversible?

This is what I don't get.

I oppose all settlement expansion. But why can't it be reversed?

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I agree the settlement venture should be reversed...

But I see arguments all the time saying that it's not possible to remove large settlements, and seeing how the intention of successive Israeli govts was to create facts on the ground, I think there's a major unwillingness to reverse things so that a viable and independent Palestinian state could emerge.

The problem I see is that if things keep on continuing the way they are, the settlements will keep on growing and the chances of a Palestinian state emerging will end up vanishing. What's left then will be a one-state 'solution', and it's what people should worry about rather than getting all bothered about a binational democratic state or even a confederation type thing, because what will emerge will be an Israel which has expanded to take in the West Bank, and Israel will have only two choices: the first is to give all Palestinians living in the West Bank Israeli citizenship, which means Israel would cease to have a Jewish majority. And the second is to retain the Jewish majority by not giving citizenship to the Palestinians living in territory that would now be part of Israel. That second one if it ever happened would mean that Israel would cease to be a democracy.

[subsuelo]

33. Thank you

There is another option Israel will be left with -- leave the smallest amount of sustainable land for the millions of Palestinians, then allow that portion to become a 'state' so that all the important people can congratulate themselves and hand out peace prizes

[Vegasaurus]

30. If and when that day comes, there will be a reckoning of some sort

we are far from that day, so your worrying about it and pushing for a single state of bloodshed isn't going to make that day come any faster.

[subsuelo]

32. There already is a single state

This has nothing to do with what I or anyone else is 'pushing'

[Shaktimaan]

19. IYO, When did the two state solution die?

The Camp David talks were in 2000. Taba was in 2001. Both were considered landmark meetings in that they managed to resolve, or nearly resolve, most of the issues fueling the conflict. Obviously the talks were ultimately unsuccessful. But most observers saw them as reasons to have hope that the two state solution was viable and that peace was a goal that wasn't only achievable, but was within immediate reach should the right leaders materialize.

So at what point in the last eight years did this solution become impossible?

I think you are looking at this situation from a specific viewpoint, and are limiting yourself by judging the possibilities according to extremely recent events and politics. History has a funny way of surprising anyone who attempts to predict its route. Hindsight is always 20/20, and so many past historical events seem to have been inevitable when viewed from our vantage point. But an event like the formation of Israel faced far worse odds of succeeding than the nascent Palestinian state does now.

That's not to say that it WILL happen. But if our goal is to have both peace and stability for the Israelis and Palestinians then IMHO there is only one solution: two states. I don't think that any single state would be able to fulfill our modest goal. After all, the main reason for the two state solution's continued failure is the refusal for either side to compromise on certain issues. If two nationalities can't even find enough common ground to successfully separate then holding a wedding is probably not going to be a superior idea.

Have you ever heard of a breakup that was stymied by so much mutual mistrust and contempt that the couple decided the only reasonable solution was to get married?

[subsuelo]

21. Where will the second state go if Israel keeps stealing all the land?

[LeftishBrit]

23. So when the two-state solution happens, land will have to be given up...

and settlers will have to be re-located and compensated. It will mean much more disruption for the settlers and the Israeli and Palestinian governments than if the settlements had never happened in the first place. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

[subsuelo]

34. and that is where we disagree

My view is that it is no longer possible to achieve all the relocations and compensations required to make it happen. It becomes less and less so as each day passes.

[Zionismisnotracism]

35. Why?

If it were possible to create Israel after nearly 2000 years of diaspora, why is it impossible to create a Palestinian state less than 100 years after partition?

[subsuelo]

36. Create on what land?

You advocate that Palestinians take back what Israel stole?

[LeftishBrit]

8. I admire his idealism, but I think he's unrealistic (see my other post).

I was slightly amused in a black-comedy way at the threat not to let him be buried in the place allotted to national leaders. I don't think that most people's foremost concern is where they'll be *buried*; they'd just rather it wasn't too soon!