Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid caused quite a stir this week, when in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, he declared that the best solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the creation of an independent Palestinian state. He stated that still a significant majority of the Israeli people stands behind the “Two-State solution”, and he claimed, “He is one of them”. The only condition needs to be that the Palestinians, the newly formed state, will be a peaceful State.
The “Two-State Solution” is of course not a new idea. It has been brought forward numerous times over the years, and even Netanyahu in his Bar Ilan speech in 2009, endorsed it, even though later he retreated. The simple fact is that even those who claimed to be in favor did very little if anything to turn it into reality.
What are the options today to solve the conflict?
The first option, and the most obvious one, is to do nothing. Israel for years has in fact chosen this option (from Yitzhak Shamir on) and it simply means that Israel, being militarily much stronger than the Palestinians, will enforce the current status, suppress the Palestinian people with (sometimes brute) force, and prevent any changes that may improve the possibilities for a solution. And, in the process attempt, again with the use of force, to change the facts on the ground, building illegal settlements, removing Palestinians from their land, destroying their crops and in general making their life miserable. Israel should be able to continue this option for years to come, dealing with terrorism and moving more and more Jews into the occupied territories, but it will not solve anything at all in the end.
The second option, and one that more and more Israelis are in favor of, no matter the claim Lapid made in his speech, is a unification and the formation of one State, for Israelis and Palestinians together. This sounds like an ideal solution of course but the reality is different. There are two possibilities for such a unified State to operate. In the first, Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish State, and the number of Jews and Palestinians will be more or less equal, with equal rights and equal duties. While this sounds Utopian, it will never be accepted by the majority of the Jews, for whom the “Jewish State” is not negotiable. So then, the second option is a Jewish State with Apartheid laws whereby the Palestinians become second-rate citizens with limited rights. Of course, this option will be unacceptable to the Palestinians as well as to the world-at-large.
So yes, Lapid is right, the third option, an independent Palestinian State next to Israel, is the best solution to the conflict, the only option that at least has the prospect for our children and their children, to live here in peace and prosperity. It would mean for Israelis to give up on the idea of “The Greater Israel”, a dream that includes all of the territory under dispute (and more), but which is based on biblical and sometimes questionable historic assumptions and facts. It would mean to dismantle dozens of settlements with hundreds of thousands people living there (albeit illegally), and getting used to the idea that Israel is smaller than what the majority of Israelis grew up with (The occupation has lasted fifty-five years now and most people do not know anything else). For the Palestinians it would mostly mean, as Lapid claimed, that it be a peaceful Nation. How this is to be achieved needs further analysis, but even after three generations of violence (terrorism!), also the Palestinian people should understand that economic prosperity and terror don’t go together and that the time has come to choose a leadership that will take a new direction. While it appears that Israel is paying a higher price in this deal, it should be remembered that Israel would only be giving back what it took illegally in 1967.
The above analysis is not very complicated and every Israeli by now is aware of the options that exist. The opposition to the Two-State Solution originates in political and ideological considerations that push aside justice and logic.
So, is this going to play a role in the upcoming elections? The right-wing parties, judging from their reactions to Lapid’s UN speech, are going to exploit his words for their own political ideas, and if those include racism and fascism so be it. The left-wing parties are going to be too worried how the “people” will view their support for Lapid’s views and remain silent or at most will utter weak endorsements, without putting themselves at risk. After all, again in contradiction to what Lapid said, a majority of Israelis will not agree to a “Two State Solution” if it includes giving up the “Homeland”.
It may be assumed that there are many possibilities to appease at least some of the Israelis, an exchange of lands, Palestinian demilitarization, U.S. and UN guarantees etc., but this will require negotiations.
Is any politician going to promise he will start such negotiations if elected?
I would not hold my breath…………….
I hope you found this article interesting and I welcome any comments you may have.
If you register on the site, you will be receiving a notice when new articles are posted.
