The June 1967 Arab-Israeli war and the subsequent occupation of Palestinian lands that followed marks a time when relations between Israelis and Palestinians reached such a low point that many on both sides are increasingly despairing of peace efforts. The rationales on all sides vary as the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day war nears, as do the proposed implications. However, the diagnosis is similar: the two-state solution, the formula that most Israelis and Palestinians support as a compromise solution for their conflict and that is the official policy of the United States and the international community, is no longer viable. So they say. That’s not all. Groups such as ours, which consider the two-state solution as the cornerstone of their vision for a secure and lasting peace, are increasingly dismissed as passé and unrealistic. “It’s over, we hear from some within our respective communities. Is it really over? Not even close. A negotiated separation agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that would allow both to live in their sovereign states, with peace and security, is the only viable option, the only one that can work. True, there are serious challenges today to achieving this goal – whether the Israeli settlement enterprise, the question of Hamas, regional spoilers or absent American leadership. But the alternatives are either unacceptable or unrealistic. One alternative is perpetual conflict. Israeli and Palestinian hard-liners say there will only be peace once the other side is defeated. If you let them, these fanatics will fight to the last drop of blood – whether that of others or their own. Surrender is not an option for either side, as we have seen in 20 years of on-again-off-again violence. But repeated Israeli attempts to defeat the Palestinians militarily have not brought Israel security. And violent Palestinian resistance has hurt the Palestinian economy, people and cause rather than force Israel to end the occupation. Neither side can defeat the other, make the other disappear, or drive the other away. The other alternative is propounded by those, mainly on the Palestinian and Israeli far left, who support a “one-state solution, the revival of the old chimera of a bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state. This is as unrealistic and undesirable today as it ever was. A bi-national state means, for all practical purposes, dismantling the state of Israel. Would Israeli Jews ever accept that? Would Palestinians – or anyone else, for that matter – ever be able to impose it? Why should Israelis give up on their dream and why should Palestinians give up on their yearning for a national homeland? And how would the two communities share in government and administration? A bi-national state, too, is a recipe for perpetual conflict. As has always been the case, this is a conflict requiring a dignified divorce, not a shotgun wedding. It’s a situation needing real, feasible opportunities, which can make compromising easier for both sides. The two-state solution stipulates a historic compromise, a grand deal that most Israelis and Palestinians have repeatedly said they support. It involves an end to Israeli territorial claims in the West Bank and an end to Palestinian claims inside Israel. It requires Palestinian recognition that those refugees from the 1948 war choosing to return will largely do so to a new Palestinian state rather than to what is now Israel; and an Israeli recognition that the fulfillment of the right they believe they have to settle in the West Bank will be either in a Palestinian state or in a part of territory negotiated in a minor land swap. A two-state solution also requires complex compromise formulas to both divide and share the holy city of Jerusalem as the capital of two states, to divide and share resources such as water. We are used to dynamics on the ground making it increasingly difficult for both sides to consider such compromises. But that is not always the case. Now, for example, the League of Arab States is urging Israel to consider a substantial incentive for compromising: full peace and normal relations with all 22 members of the league, in return for an Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied 40 years ago. Senior Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his defense and foreign ministers, have lately expressed interest in exploring the Arab League’s initiative. The question, both our organizations agree, is not whether a two-state solution is attainable. The question is whether Israelis, Palestinians and Americans will exercise the political will to make it happen so that the next meaningful anniversary will be one celebrating the first year of Palestinian statehood and Israeli-Palestinian peace. Raafat Dajaniis the executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine, an organization advocating the United States’ interest in the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution. Ori Nir is spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, which promotes peace and supports the Israeli Peace Now movement. They wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
A two-state solution is the only option
