Your comments
Signatories and supporters are invited to contribute to the debate by using the comment facility. The facility will be moderated to ensure that all published comments are civil and relevant to the debate. Comments should be limited to 500,words. The moderator’s decisions are final.
Shalom,
If you feel you all are Jews then you all are wrong you are ex communicated from the Jewish Communities the moment you criticized Israel and Israli jews. So Please stop writing Jews for justice for palestinians
I would like to have a debate with any of you regarding this.
Thanks
Shalom,
There won’t be any two state solution in future for Jews and Palestinians
The Palestinians don’t want their state they want whole israel and also they want all the jews of israel to go back to europe and other places. You people are watching a dream and always against israel. I want to speak to your all signatories whoever want to discuss/debate with me please be ready I could talk to you on youtube/zoom/whatsapp or any communication channel.
The One Democratic State Initiative is gaining ground with Palestinian and Israeli progressives. It seems to me that a two-state solution is a recipe for perpetual violence and escalating genocide but the ODSI (https://www.odsi.co/en/) make a strong case for one state. Admittedly it seems somewhat utopian at the moment. Watch this video just made from the ODSI Gaza coordinator, Mohamed Zraiy, from the shore of the Gaza Strip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FRowXnPNs4
The problem with a one state solution is that Israel is a Jewish state / a Jewish homeland, that implies that Jewish people are treated differently to non Jewish people, therefore the palestinians can never be equal citizens in that state. Can anyone please explain to me why it is anti-Semitic to describe such a state as apartheid?
I have never been that comfortable with JJP having a declared policy on any particular ‘solution’, because it feels a bit presumptious when we are not the ones who are going to be directly affected. When the ‘two-state solution’ seemed to have some wind in its sails, it made pragmatic sense to advocate for it, but now I see no momentum or credibility in it. It’s scarcely given lip service and events on the ground are sweeping it away. So in my view it has joined the ‘one state solution’ as maybe a way to keep a vision of a better future alive, but in campaigning terms irrelevant and in the current context untenable.
So I’m in favour of campaigning on human rights violations, discrimination, violence and racism. We can still engage with questions about what should happen instead, without having a policy that singles out one course of action. When western governments pay the ‘two state solution’ lip service but do almost nothing to challenge Israel, aligning with their frame runs the risk of making JJP irrelevant to the actual situation.
A long range ‘theory of change’ for campaigning in the UK would surely highlight the Jewish community and the government as our key audiences, and I think the so-called ‘rights based approach’ would give both those lines of work greater urgency and scope. There are good examples that we could learn from of rights-based lobbying of governments, and this would give us a stronger voice in challenging politicians to stop using the ‘two state solution’ as a way of avoiding tackling the actual situation. To the Jewish community we need most of all to bring some understanding of what life is actually like for Palestinians, not debates about theoretical solutions and how they might be for Jews. And I don’t see why a ‘rights based’ approach means downgrading collective rights. Individual experiences reach hearts and minds but our task must always be to show how they are the results of systematic discrimination and violence, collective punishment and denial.
“The situation” here is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from swathes of Palestine to clear the way for Jews-only / Zionist-only colonies and associated infrastructure. This meets the definition of ethnic cleansing and I am unaware of any population anywhere being subjected to this Crime Against Humanity negotiating peace terms with their aggressor! Peace must be imposed and the USA and Germany in particular, must stop their sponsorship and threaten or impose sanctions.
In the present situation it is impossible to envisage a solution to the problem based either on one state or two states. A two state solution raises many questions. Would the border permit free travel between the states? Would displaced Palestinians have a right to return to their ancestral homes? Would there be free trade across the border? If not, how would Palestine cope economically? If cross-border trade is allowed, how could Palestine protect itself against Israeli economic domination?
A one state solution would also present problems. Would Palestinians be able to stand against western supported Jewish groups?
The fact is none of these issues can be resolved or their implementation even imagined until the political mood changes. When this happens we will be in a new situation which we would then have to evaluate . Meanwhile, although we might have intellectual preferences for one solution or the other, we cannot envisage the future and need to stick with protecting Palestinian rights in the here and now. So I’m in favour of not advocating either one solution or the other at this time.
As long ago as ca 2010 it was pretty obvious to a number of us that a two state solution was pie in the sky. The latter due to the large differences in bargaining power positions for the two sides. Indeed, the two state proposal can be viewed as a political fig leaf to cover up a pretence to be promoting a peaceful solution, whilst a number of elephants are charging round the room. I absolutely agree with those who point out that it must be up to the Israelis and Palestinians to agree with the final outcome. Whilst noting some ageeable points in David Key’s argument, I would still feel it sensible for JJP not to promote one outcome over the other. As already mentioned, we should be encouraging actions that promote justice and peace, including UK and US governments not turning blind eyes to what Israel increasingly does, but actively reduces the aid that Israel receives which contributes to the immense imbalance of bargaining power.
Only a 1 state solution is now viable, as 2 states cannot work with the mushrooming of settlements in the West Bank. Question? How are Palestinians going to squeeze in there state with the amount land illegally conviscated.
This is an incredibly difficult question. One state where Palestinians are treated as second class citizens is not an answer. Nor are two states with a constant border war. Personally I tend towards a one state solution because I do not think states should be based on religious lines or ethnicity. I also am not sure how realistic a two state solution is, given the damage that has been caused by Israel’s actions on the ground to the prospects of any viable Palestinian state. At the end of the day any solution must be part of a process and it should not be for outsiders to determine that outcome. So in that sense I do not think it is our business as JfJfPto advocate for one or the other options. It could also alienate some of our supporters who do feel strongly one way or the other but who are united in a desire for peace and just future.
We can have various views, but in the end it is entirely up to the people concerned to decide what they want. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis must have a say in the future. The two-state solution does seem to be the most sensible, but the most important question for us living elsewhere is to demand that the Palestinians have real human rights, whatever the final outcome is. If the majority of Israelis continue to co-exist with some of the most terrible attacks on the human rights of the Palestinians, then that needs to be called out and opposed.
Clearly it is impossible to be 100% sure about the future consequences of any given solution. However, by analysing in detail the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict and by looking in equal detail at the fate of ‘one state’ solutions in Pakistan (and the consequent genocide in the eastern part of that former ‘one state’ entity), the ‘greater UK’ (1801- 1921, and Britain’s treatment of Ireland), Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, ‘greater’ Sudan (1956- 2011), Iraq and many others, it is quite clear that any attempted ‘one state’ solution in Israel/Palestine is likely to end in tears for everyone concerned. Although neutrality between supporting a ‘one state’ or a ‘two state’ solution is an attractive option for some organisations (including sadly some people in JJP), any such neutrality is in effect an illusion. Neutrality is hardly ever genuinely neutral. In most cases, it nearly always benefits one side or the other.
In the case of Israel/Palestine, neutrality by otherwise progressive organisations merely helps the extreme right ultra-Zionist ‘greater Israel’ advocates to advance their colonial-style ‘one state’ outcome. Any additional weakening of support for a ‘two state’ solution by otherwise progressive organisations therefore de facto encourages and assists the drift towards a ‘greater Israel’ ‘one state’ outcome (and the horrendous increase in population displacement, human rights violations and settlement building that that would continue to entail). Any weakening of support for a ‘two state’ solution merely plays into the hands of the ‘greater Israel’ advocates on the ultra-Zionist hard right. If we care about Palestinian civil rights and Palestinian self-determination, and if we care about not being complicit in more serious conflict and bloodshed in Israel/Palestine in the future, we must not change our pro-two-state position. any support for (or even neutral attitude towards) a ‘one state’ outcome (or any coded more respectable-sounding version of such an outcome will tragically ultimately harm the cause of justice, self-determination, peace and equality.
If we care about Palestinian self-determination I wonder how we can be pro-two-state considering that less than 40 percent of the Palestinian public—in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—choose a two-state solution according to polling in June and again in December 2021. Can self-determination positions be decided by others such as JFJFP? Maybe we drop the 2-state stance and instead concentrate on forcing the Israeli government and its enablers to hold sincere and urgent peace negotiations with meaningful concessions offering Palestine independence and self-rule as well as an end to Israeli apartheid, violence, and colonialism. And massive reparations. Will they ever?
I remain convinced that two states is the best long term solution. I need only look at the state of affairs in Northern Ireland to see what could happen should a single-state power-sharing arrangement be sought.
The most important thing is to campaign for peace. Contrary to other comments here, I do consider it important for the JfJfP to state a reasoned opinion on a preferred outcome. Especially when that is backed up by relevant data, as put forward by Arthur Goodman. I am not Jewish, and I consider this organisation of key importance for lobbying for change. There is a mine field of prejudice for us to walk. To talk critically of Israel often gets one labeled as anti-Semite because many places that talk critically of Israel are indeed anti-Semite. It is my opinion that the Jewish community itself that is best positioned to voice opposition to this persecution and apartheid. When JfJfP clearly states their aims then I feel confident that it is a position I can voice, draw attention to, and rally support around.
I agree, Tim, the right people to change the political asymmetry in the region are the Jewish groups that are more faithful to the spirit of Judaism and its inherent humanity.
I read with interest this debate.. I tend to think it is presumptuous for JFJP to agree a position on a solution. Our approach should be based on equality and justice for all those living in Israel And Palestine as well as an end to apartheid. The solution needs to arise from this framework and designed those active in situ. We can come up with various options and solutions but I think we would be better partnering with Palestinians and Israelis to support new radical solutions that get us away from the current 2 state 1 state dichotomy. Interestingly the two states one homeland movement is a very good example of this. A joint initiative by Palestinians and Israelis to come up with an imperfect third way solution. What I do think is important is the values articulate strongly in support equality and justice and against apartheid both in and beyong the 67 border.
Hi – guys – there is a general political principle involved – only those in the situation can make peace – it is pointless those not in the situation prescribing solutions for those in other polities – it violates the very principle that JFJFP has advocated – i.e. – the two state solution is about self-determination – therefore the role of JFJFP should be to facilitate solutions not decide them – this is the general political rule – hold any opinion you want – but do not take sides and absolutely do not fuel other people’s conflicts – historical example – Kansas – had very few inhabitants – who were not even concerned too much about being pro or anti-slavery – others used it to contest those matters – leaving not only – Kansas – but – Missouri – burning ruins
I am convinced by the arguments for two states (though 2 states requires a peace process – it is not a “solution” without a successful process. However, we cannot guarantee the process will be successful – there may not be a viable 2 state solution acceptable to all sides. It is therefore important not to reject other views or exclude people who hold other views. What can be agreed now, I think, is that there should be peace, an end to occupation and justice and equality for all citizens of any state in Israel/Palestine