Thoughts on a Political Solution
Under the prevailing sociopolitical, cultural, and economic conditions, a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine are two separate and independent states with their own flags appears to be the most fair, logical, and viable solution. A one-state solution with a secular democracy appears unrealistic because it lacks international support and, more importantly, lacks support amongst Palestinians and Israelis. The fact that there has never been a Muslim-majority country in the Arab world with a viable secular democracy does not make the one-state ideal look promising. Moreover, such a solution would inevitably lead to a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, which would not likely be accepted if one considers the high level of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world. If we are keeping the best interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis in mind, a two-state solution offers the most peaceful resolution to this conflict. Over the longer term, after such a two-state solution is implemented and the two sides gradually build greater trust and collaboration, we anticipate that a lasting and honorable peace based initially on a two-state solution will lead to a Middle Eastern Renaissance as well as to the inception and gradual growth of a regional supranational alliance similar to the European Union.
Furthermore, the peace process must focus on direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in order for them to be peaceful partners with the other countries in the Middle East. Unilateral measures for statehood will not work if long-term peace is the goal because they will exacerbate the current divisions and conflicts. Moreover, such measures are unethical because they do not give Israelis and Palestinians an equal chance to set their terms and conditions for the future peace deal. Because both of these peoples are native inhabitants of Palestine, each group must agree about how the land will be divided and how other disputes will be solved. Israel and the Palestinians must find a mutually-satisfying solution in order to ensure peaceful partnership and justice.
We have reason to believe that close economic and political cooperation may gradually develop between Israel and Palestine just as they did between France and Germany. This can happen when the grudges of the past are put aside and the benefits of peaceful cooperation become clear.
Thinking optimistically and with a long-term perspective, such cooperation could then lead to the establishment of a supranational entity similar to the European Union, which would encompass all of the nations of the Middle East. This entity would ensure both a lasting and honorable peace as well as economic and political cooperation. Jerusalem, whose status we will discuss below in detail, could serve as the capital for such a supranational entity.
The government of Israel has always formally supported a two-state solution through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians; however, Israel has been allowing Jewish settlements in the West Bank to expand, even as negotiations are taking place. This policy hinders a two-state solution and direct negotiations. The expansion of settlements causes the Palestinians to doubt the true motives of the Israeli government. This doubt has often led to a hesitation to negotiate and mistrust on both sides. As a result, it would be best to halt the expansion of settlements as the negotiations are taking place. Doing otherwise will hurt the peace process and possibly make Palestinians unwilling to negotiate in the future.
A joint administration that would decide the placement of Jewish settlers and Palestinian refugees may be the best compromise in order to preserve the Jewish majority in Israel and make sure the Palestinians are getting a fair share of the land. Any Jew who wants to settle in Israel and any Palestinian who wants to settle in the future Palestinian state should be allowed to do so; however, in order to harmonize the Palestinian goal of statehood with that of Israeli Jewry to maintain their independent State of Israel, it will be necessary to limit the number of Jewish settlers in the future Palestinian state and the number of Palestinian refugees allowed to live in Israel.
In implementing such a political solution, Israel will need to withdraw to within borders similar to its pre-1967 borders, with allowance being made for some small modifications relative to those borders to meet its continuing economic and security needs. In return, it will be essential for the political solution to encompass the normalization of relations between Israel and all Arab nations as well as a guarantee that new settlement locations will be made available to all Jews who may wish to settle in Israel in the future.
The documentary “Is Peace Possible? Chapter 1: Borders” which was prepared by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and is accessible online at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/drawing-an-israel-palestine-border/247264/ considers how mutually acceptable borders can be set between Israel and a future Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with small land swaps accommodating today’s demographic realities. Potential land swaps incorporate within Israel most of the Israelis living in the West Bank; while land swapped to Israel is adjacent to the 1967 lines, without a Palestinian population, minimal in extent, not impeding on contiguity or daily life in Palestine, and matched by the transfer from Israel to Palestine of an area without a Jewish population comparable to the area of West Bank land transferred to Israel.
The documentary “Is Peace Possible? Chapter 3: Refugees” which is accessible online at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/resolving-the-palestinian-refugee-crisis/248020/ considers how the Palestinian refugee crisis can be solved within the context of a two-state solution. It points out that drastic differences between national narratives (especially regarding the assignment of blame) as well as many practical obstacles have impeded progress although the positions of the two sides have softened somewhat in recent years. The key question is whether a deal can be reached on how to resolve the Palestinian refugee crisis while preserving Israel as a Jewish state. While there are no easy solutions, various paths are explored for reaching a viable compromise.
The fact of the matter is that there is enough empty desert space in the Middle East to meet everyone’s needs. There is no need to fight for this desert space. The real challenge is to convert more of this desert space into fertile land. It is by surmounting this challenge that the lives of the peoples of the region can be improved tremendously. The technology to surmount this challenge is already available. Israel is its leading practitioner, as it has shown since its foundation. The establishment of peace and an atmosphere of genuine collaboration would provide the Arab nations of the region the opportunity to benefit fully from Israel’s expertise and technology in desert agriculture.
Thoughts on a Special Political Status for Jerusalem
Jerusalem is the main holy city of primary importance to both Jews and Christians. It is also a major holy city for Muslims, ranking third after Mecca and Medina. It is thus both a multireligious sacred site and a living museum of the three major Abrahamic religions.
Many bloody interreligious wars have been fought throughout history over the political control of Jerusalem. This is deplorable since the Abrahamic religions all teach the value of human life, the imperative to treat each other kindly, and the commands to strive for peace and justice. It is especially unfortunate, as well as surprising, that this state of affairs continues to persist in the globalized world of the 21st century.
Obviously, the continued political control of the entirety of Jerusalem by any one religion is one of the greatest obstacles to a lasting and honorable peace in the Middle East. It is for this reason that the creation of a special political status based on an equitable compromise that will be acceptable to all but the most extreme elements of each of the parties to the Middle Eastern conflict appears to be needed for Jerusalem.
In this context, it is important to note that there is already de facto separation between West Jerusalem (where most of the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the government buildings of the modern State of Israel are located) and East Jerusalem (where the Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem
are located). Thus, in a future two-state solution, West Jerusalem could become the internationally recognized capital of Israel, while the capital of Palestine could be established in East Jerusalem, so that Jerusalem becomes the capital of both Israel and Palestine with their goverment offices in different parts of the city.
The only portion of Jerusalem whose status is truly controversial is the “Old City”, covering an area of merely 0.9 square kilometers (0.35 square miles) contained within the present walls dating back to Ottoman times, which is the site of the Christian church containing the site of Jesus' crucifixion and burial, as well as the historic site of the ancient Jewish Temple and the present site of the Muslim Dome of the Rock. The most promising scenario for the Old City is to change its status to that of a semi-autonomous region under the general oversight of the United Nations. The local administration of the Old City could then be assigned to a committee consisting of equal numbers of representatives of each of the three major Abrahamic religions. The position of chairperson of this interfaith committee would rotate between the three
Thoughts on Achieving a Lasting and Honorable Peace in the Middle East Page 3