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.
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
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.