The two nation-state solution

[shira]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080473.html

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about the occupation. If it were about the occupation, it would have erupted in 1967 and not in 1920. If it were a conflict over the occupation, it would have ended in 2000 and not continued to this day. If it were about the occupation, it would be easy to terminate it by means of a full Israeli withdrawal and full Palestinian recognition of Israel after the withdrawal. However, withdrawal is not being implemented and recognition is not being given because the conflict is not about the occupation.

<snip>

The best illustration of the Palestinian refusal was provided last year. In the summer of 2008, Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, made Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) an unprecedented peace proposal: Israel would retain only 6.5 percent of the West Bank (the settlement blocs) and in return the Palestinians would receive full territorial compensation in the Mount Hebron area, in the Beit She'an Valley and in the Judean Hills. Jerusalem would be divided on a demographic basis, with the holy basin to be entrusted to a special international regime. However, Abu Mazen did not accept Olmert's end-of-occupation offer. He rejected out of hand the principle of dividing the country into two nation-states.

The import of this is clear: a double asymmetry exists between Israel and the Palestinians. On the one hand, Israel is the occupier and the Palestinians are the occupied. But on the other hand, Israel recognizes the right of existence of the Palestinian people's state, whereas the Palestinians do not recognize the right of existence of the Jewish people's state.

To try to acheive peace, it is essential to address the two asymmetries concurrently. To demand that Israel act for the establishment of a Palestinian state and to demand that the Palestinians recognize the Jewish state.

<snip>

[Ken Burch]

1. What difference does it make when the Palestinians recognize Israel?

Why isn't it enough for them to do so when the treaty is signed?

And, for that matter, why wasn't it enough that the PA recognized Israel years ago?

Why continue to obsess on this one word?

Peace is what matters, not "recognition first".

And peace can't come WITHOUT the proclamation of a Palestinian state, because there can't be justice and hope for the Palestinian people without it. The Israelis already have everything, the Palestinians at this point have nothing.

[mike_c]

2. and such a generous offer....

"We'll only keep the part of the West Bank that we've already illegally colonized." Get back to me if you'd be willing to give up your land for such a deal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. If you go back to the original split, the west back was supposed to be part of Israel

and Israel has actually controlled it most of the time since its creation. Israel never gave up its claims to the land even though it was illegally occupied.

While a devils argument position, it has at least as much validity as the "illegal colonization" proponents. I saw a t-shirt on this recently calling to end the Arab occupation of Jewish Lands. I was amazed that the student had survived the day with it on.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. The Palestinians should recognise Israel as an Israeli state.

N.T.