FAIR

Fair minded people seeking peace and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians have traditionally supported the “two-state solution.” Recently, however, a number of Christian leaders in the U.S. have been suggesting that a one-state solution is becoming inevitable. Although the ostensible reason for this inevitability changes frequently, it is always because of some Israeli action. What is the motive behind these claims?

Some Christian leaders in the U.S. are claiming that a one-state solution is becoming inevitable because of Israeli actions

• They variously argue that because of Israeli settlement building, the continued building of the security barrier, Israel’s January 2009 war in Gaza, or some other Israeli action or policy, the “window of opportunity” for a two-state solution is “narrowing” or has even closed.

But is this true?

• This is a puzzling and disturbing position to take and it has no basis in fact.

• Settlement building in no way prevents future implementation of a two-state solution. Settlements can be dismantled once the contours of the Palestinian state are determined. Israel proved its willingness to dismantle the settlements on the West Bank when it accepted the Clinton Parameters in Taba and Washington D.C. in 20000/2001.

• Israel also proved its ability to quickly dismantle settlements when it dismantled every single settlement in Gaza in 2005.

• The settlements are stupid politically and very unfair to the Palestinians, but they do not prevent a two-state solution.

• The security barrier was built in response to terrorism and can come down when the Israelis know there will be no more suicide bombing. The route of the barrier has been moved several times in response to directions from the Israeli Supreme Court which has repeatedly demonstrated serious concern about humanitarian issues. How does the barrier prevent the Palestinians and the Israelis from reaching a workable political solution? It clearly does not.

• A far-fetched argument has emerged for why the 2009 war in Gaza imperiled the plan for a two-state solution if Israel does not assume responsibility for the humanitarian crisis, Jordan and Egypt will have to and this would lead to those nations “policing” the Israel/Palestinian conflict, which would in turn undermine their peace treaty with Israel. Some argue that this, highly unlikely sequence of events would in some way make a two-state solution impossible. This argument makes no real sense. Neither Egypt nor Jordan has shown any inclination to assume responsibility for humanitarian aid to Gaza and less inclination to “police” the conflict. Egypt has refused to keep its border (Rafah) crossing to Gaza open and Abdel Raoud el-Reedy, a former ambassador to the United States who is the chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs said “Gaza is no longer Egypt’s responsibility, and Egypt is determined not to take it back.”

• The war in Gaza, while tragic and regrettable, was a legitimate Israeli response to Qassam rocket attacks on its civilian population that had been going on pretty much non-stop for seven years. Allegations of “war crimes” on the part of the Israelis should be investigated. But how does it prevent a two-state solution? Once again, clearly it does not.

• Therefore, the question is, what is the agenda in some churchmens’ claims that Israel is precluding the possibility of a two-state Solution, leaving the one-state solution as the only option?

What is a one-state solution and why would some in our churches be promoting it?

• A one-state solution would be a bi-national state incorporating both Israel and all of the Palestinian territories. It is a euphemism for the destruction of the Jewish state.

• At its most basic level, the one-state solution would deny the right of both Jews and Palestinians to self-determination in their own homeland.

• For Israel, a bi-national state would have the same consequence as the “right of return” - the negation of Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinians, by virtue of a higher birthrate, would ultimately turn Jews into a minority. The one-state solution has long been proposed by extremists who question Israel’s right to exist. Those who advocate the single state solution would never do so with regard to India, the former Yugoslavia, or other previously united states which have now been divided on ethnic or religious grounds.

• Religious Jewish extremists have also long proposed a one-state solution, wherein Jews would continue to occupy Palestinian land because of their belief in a biblically-based ownership. This view ignores the fundamental right of Palestinians to their own homeland and self-determination.

• On a practical level, a one-state solution is unworkable. As Palestinian columnist Ray Hanania wrote: “But the two-state solution will always be the only option because the premise of ‘one state’ where Christians, Muslims and Jews can live side-by-side and with equality, is fundamentally flawed.”

A Two- State solution with a Jewish state and an Arab Palestinian state living side by side in peace is the only just solution for both Palestinians and Israelis.

Why are some of our Churches promoting a one-state solution, under the guise of the spurious claim that Israel is making it inevitable?