Two States: Still The Only Way To End The Conflict


I keep hearing from people who say “but what is Israel supposed to do?” They then go on to say that it is now more obvious than ever that if Palestinians control the West Bank Israel will not be safe. “They” will just launch missiles from there.
Here are the facts:
No iteration of the two-state solution allows the West Bank to be militarized. The Palestinian state would have no army. Its borders with Israel would be guarded, not only by the IDF which obviously would not go out of existence, but by U.S. monitors. The CIA would play a particular role (as it did in the last years of Oslo), working with both sides, to prevent and combat violence. During that period CIA-brokered Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation reduced acts of terrorism to zero. All this is spelled out in the various documents circulated during negotiations; and all these conditions were accepted by Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas.
Nobody who advocates the two-state solution envisions Israel just walking away and handing the keys to the Palestinians. Every proposed agreement includes ironclad security guarantees. It is also worth noting that the Palestinian Authority, even without any two-state agreement, has successfully eliminated most violence emanating from the West Bank.
But what about Gaza and Hamas?

Any agreement must include Hamas, which is why most supporters of the two-state solution welcomed the Hamas/Fatah unity agreement. The goal, which the United States should encourage, is for Hamas to allow Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate a peace deal with Israel on behalf of all Palestinian people. Hamas says it is ready for a 10-year truce with Israel in exchange for an end to the blockade. Why not do it, so long as U.S. or international monitors ensure that Hamas cannot keep building missiles rather than feed its children.
The two-state solution is the answer, as it always has been.The one-state alternative is a chimera, a fantasy built on the idea that an Israel which refuses to leave the West Bank will leave…Israel. One state means the eradication of a Jewish state anywhere in Palestine. That will never happen, nor should it. It is especially ironic to hear people who speak of Palestinians’ “right” to a state to then turn around and say that the 7 million Israeli Jews have no such right.
The status quo is a disaster, a disaster primarily created by the Israeli government’s refusal to commit itself to withdraw from the West Bank and end the Gaza blockade in exchange for ironclad security guarantees that will protect all Israelis and all Palestinians. The loathsome Hamas regime in Gaza is also guilty, but it is Mahmoud Abbas, who Shimon Peres calls a true “partner for peace,” whose peace offers have repeatedly been rebuffed by Israel.
The solution–which can only be reached through U.S.-brokered negotiations that will include the Israelis and all Palestinian factions–is two states living side by side in peace.
That is no fantasy. Ask John Kerry. The blueprints are in his brief case. If he would only be allowed to lay them on the table.

5 thoughts on “Two States: Still The Only Way To End The Conflict

  1. Dear Sir,
    With all due respect, there is no two state solution. There hasn’t been one for decades. Most likely, neither side’s leaders ever wanted it. This situation has no solution. It is an apartheid and will remain one until the world had enough and the occupier is completely isolated.
    When that happens, most of the Israelis will likely move to the US.

  2. Excellent reasoning…so seemingly simple yet deeply profound…it is the ONLY answer….thank you….

  3. In my sight, isn’t the real threat the HAMAS is the actual threat? Palestine deserves their own space so a two state solution is the only solution. But at the same time it seems to me that Palestine and Israel must join together to to defeat a more common threat, The HAMAS. This has to be a joint effort to let all parties know that the threats by the Hamas will and cannot be tolerated.

  4. Mr. Rosenberg,
    In the last month, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made two public statements that unequivocally rule out a two-state solution. On June 29, in a speech at Tel Aviv University, he announced that any peace agreement would include Israeli military control of the West Bank. On July 11, in a Hebrew language press conference, he said “There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
    Benjamin Netanyahu’s message is quite clear: Palestinians will NEVER enjoy a sovereign state.
    It appears that most voters in Israel prefer the vision of the future drawn by men like Netanyahu, Naftali Bennet and Avigdor Leiberman. A significant number of Americans, Christians and Jews, support any government the Israelis elect. You are vehemently opposed to boycott, divestment, and sanctions. My three representatives in Congress display no intention of changing their unquestioned support of the State of Israel.
    What do you suggest the rest of the people of the United States–those who have no ethnic ties to Israel, who do not share the religious beliefs of John Hagee, who are not supporters of the web of political influence represented by AIPAC and all its affiliates – what do we do to change this situation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *