Actions and Inactions by Sharon and Bush Put Two-State Solution at Risk

It takes a sharp eye to identify any signs that could point to Israeli-Palestinian peace. While the President and his challenger disagree on almost everything, their cheers for Israel's actions have been in unison. One has to look beyond the United States elections to detect any light, and even then it remains dim.

Dr. Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, urges a redefinition of the conflict. The divide is no longer along ethnic religious lines pitting Israelis against Palestinians. He now sees the line being between those who want peace in our time and strive to separate into two states, and those who think that time is on their side as they reject this compromise. He appeals to the two-state allies — Israelis, Palestinians and Americans — to mobilize.

For years, opponents of peace have held the veto power, and have used it to thwart popular hopes and dissuade weak leaders. Now, even many longtime supporters of Israeli-Palestinian peace say a two-state solution is impossible.

Long-Held Formula

The two-state solution was envisioned in late 1947 by the United Nations (United Nations General Assembly 181) which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem having a separate status as an international city under U.N. administration. When U.N.-sponsored armistice agreements were signed in 1949, Israel had conquered part of the land allotted to the proposed Arab state, Jordan had annexed much of the remainder, and Jerusalem had been divided into Israeli and Jordanian sectors. Out of Palestine's prewar population of 1.3 million, approximately half had become refugees, either in the West Bank or Gaza or in neighboring states.

The next marker toward a two-state solution was United Nations Security Council Res. 242, which passed after the June 1967 war. That war ended with Israel gaining East Jerusalem and the West Bank (from Jordan), the Gaza Strip (from Egypt), as well as the Sinai and Golan Heights. The Security Council, with United States and the Soviet Union cooperating, emphasized the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security." Thus, Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict and for Arab states to accept Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. Among other enunciated principles, UNSC Res. 242 "affirms the necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem."

Ever since, UNSC 242 has been cited as an agreed basis for a peaceful settlement between Israel and its neighbors — in countless U.N. resolutions, the Camp David accord of 1978, the Madrid talks, 1993's Israeli and Palestinian mutual recognition, the Declaration of Principles and the ensuing Oslo process, the Arab League initiative of 2002 and, currently, in the Road Map plan.

The two-state solution was clarified in 1988 when King Hussein formally severed Jordan's claim to the West Bank and called upon the PLO to take responsibility for the Palestinians under occupation. By the end of 1988, the PLO proclaimed the independence of Palestine and accepted UNSC Res. 242. Prior to this, the policy language of the United States churches expressed the right of national self-determination by both the Jewish people in the state of Israel and the Palestinian people in a Palestinian "homeland" or "Palestinian entity." Many of the mainline churches in the United States now have policy that explicitly calls for two states with reference to a sovereign state of Palestine as the outcome of an end of Israel's occupation and in accordance with UNSC Res. 242 and international law.

The Big But*

But, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories continues, and grows even harsher. Settlements and bypass roads encircle occupied East Jerusalem, making a mockery of the idea of a shared capital and severing the West Bank from its economic, religious and cultural hub. The separation barrier cuts off Palestinians from their adjacent farmland and water resources and further blocks their negligible freedom of movement. Settlements — with their cordons of soldiers, checkpoints and road blocks — are the most obvious facts-on-the-ground that make Israel's withdrawal seem impossible.

As they warily watched settlements expand during the hopeful years of the Oslo peace process, the Palestinian people elected officials to the Palestinian Legislative Council and practiced self-governance in the cities deigned to be under Palestinian Authority rule. Hopes were high.

But now, Palestinians see their reality: barely able to move under oppressive occupation, with a weak and isolated leadership that has outlasted its electoral mandate, lacking any personal or communal security, with their economy wrecked and institutions crippled. All are held hostage by the violent actions of militants.

Having lost sight of a Palestinian state, and crushed by the burden of occupation, some Palestinians and Israeli Jews have reversed course — concluding that there cannot be two states for two people — and now promote the idea of one state. It is after all an enticing notion; equal rights for all, and a passport, and freedom to travel between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, without checkpoints or curfews.

Option 1: One State

Always rejected by Israel, a secular bi-national state was the goal of Palestinians until 1988, when the PLO accepted UNSC Res. 242 and implicitly recognized Israel. With few exceptions, Jewish Israelis are Zionists, to whom Israel's existence as a Jewish state is fundamental. They are committed to the Jewish nature of the state, which embodies security for the Jewish people.

It would not be long, according to demographic predictions, before the Arab population of a single state encompassing Israel and the occupied territories would exceed the Jewish population. And the Arab population would swell further if refugees from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan were settled there.

Palestinian legislator, educator and author Hanan Ashwawi said recently, "You're not going to have any Israeli who will negotiate with you on the basis of de-Zionization of Israel." She told a forum at Washington's Palestine Center that those who would pursue a single state as a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will condemn two, three, or more future generations of Palestinians to a "state of captivity." She asserts that Palestinians, as well as Israelis, will not relinquish their rights to their own statehood, freedom and long-awaited "day in the sunshine."

In addition to the strong commitments by both Israelis and Palestinians to national rights, the disparities in economic development and history of discrimination and hatred doom a one-state solution.

Option 2: The Phantom State of Palestine

In the second option, Prime Minister Sharon gives lip service to a phony Palestinian state: one composed of disconnected chunks of the West Bank and Gaza, encircled by walls and soldiers and devoid of prime agricultural land and water resources. Some liken this to the Bantustans established by South Africa's apartheid government. While this could not possibly be a negotiated solution, unilateral actions by Israel could bring this result.

A mock solution that sets up a phantom state of Palestine could be sustained for decades, but not peacefully. The continuous and gross violations of human rights needed for Israelis' security would bring it pariah status. Unable to fulfill their economic and national ambitions, cut off from each other and Jerusalem, those Palestinians able to emigrate would do so. The endangered Christian Palestinian population could well disappear. The few tourists would find empty churches and shrines.

Option 3: Transfer

The scenario goes like this: Following some particularly horrendous act of violence by Palestinians, perhaps while the United Nations and United States are busy with some distant crisis, the Israeli army would force a massive migration of Palestinians. The disastrous aftermath is beyond contemplation. But, how can it be done? Most analysts dismiss "transfer" as simply not possible, both because of the nature of instant and global communications, the sheer numbers of Palestinians, and Israel's relationship with Jordan.

While P.M. Sharon has renounced the "Jordan is Palestine" argument that he proposed years ago, his far-right opponents keep alive their dream that thousands of West Bank Palestinians will cross the river Jordan. And Jordanian officials were worried enough that Israel's separation barrier could pressure Palestinians to invade Jordan that they took their case to The Hague.

Speaking the Truth

The alternatives to a two-state solution are all fatally flawed. It is a mistake to elevate the virtues of a one-state solution, as do some who fundamentally oppose Zionism itself. Additionally, some one-state proponents do so as a tactic intended to awaken Israelis, and their United States supporters, to the consequences of maintaining settlements and the occupation.

It is also a mistake to act that the two-state solution is just down the road, as set out in the Road Map peace plan. Nevertheless, the Road Map remains the currency for talking about Israeli-Arab peacemaking and has the trappings of international legitimacy. The UNSC resolution of May 19, which responded to Israel's military operations in Gaza's Rafah refugee camp, reaffirms U.N. support for the Road Map.

The importance of the two-state solution holds, even as its feasibility recedes. While President Bush extols the merits of two-states, including a "viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent" Palestinian state, his actions belie his words. Even though White House officials hastened to explain that the United States was still committed to negotiated agreements to determine land and refugee issues, the President's words at the April 14 press conference left no doubt about his endorsement of Israel, retaining large West Bank settlements, and not accepting Palestinian refugees.

What is true is that President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon are acting unilaterally to make the two-state solution impossible. The government of Israel has done its best to prove that it has no partner for negotiations nor peacemaking and therefore must act unilaterally.

The joint effort to leave the Palestinians out of decision making, and thus prevent a resumption of negotiations, has so far succeeded. A seasoned peace advocate says, "Any pretense of the United States being an honest broker has been cast aside. Unless the Bush policy is reversed, talk of a two-state solution is simply a delusion."

In the Meantime

As outrage escalates over the United States occupation of Iraq, the President's cadre seems to be recognizing the necessity of repairing relations with Arab states and European allies. With Jordan's King Abdullah by his side, President Bush on May 6th said he wants to "make sure the Palestinians understand my desire for there to be a just peace" And in what appeared to mark an abrupt change in tactics, he then announced, "We will expand dialogue between the United States and the Palestinians." Mr. Bush will need to provide more than words for the Palestinians to believe him.

There are other signs of readiness by the Administration to show more care for the Palestinian people. For instance, the United States allowed (by its abstention) passage of the Security Council resolution "condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area."

It is unrealistic to think that campaigning politicians, even Bush's rival John Kerry, will be critical of Israel or the President's embrace of Israel. However, while remaining staunchly pro-Israel, they might be ready also to be more pro-Palestinian.

Suggested Action: Even though Representatives and many Senators will be devoted to campaigning, staff assigned to serve constituents will still be meeting with people and reporting on what those potential voters are saying. During the summer, arrange meetings with staff in your Representative's or Senators' local offices. Call or write their Washington office, and call or write the White House with this message (elaborating as you can).

There has been success in our advocacy opposing the location of the separation barrier and on problems encountered by Christian institutions in the Holy Land. It is most important to reiterate this message to your members of congress.

- (Identify yourself in relation to your church) I am an advocate for Israeli-Palestinian peace. My Christian faith compels me to seek justice and peace, most of all in the Holy Land.

The separation barrier being built by Israel on Palestinian lands is destroying the possibility of peace.

Christian institutions in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — schools, hospitals and churches — are threatened by Israel's denial of visas and tax demands. The future of the living Christian presence in Palestine is at risk because of the continued occupation and conflict.

- Only with strong leadership by the United States will Israelis and Palestinians achieve the two-state solution, which both deserve and need. A two-state solution requires negotiated agreements between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. It would be a setback for the United States to approve Israel's unilateral actions on settlements, borders, refugees or the status of Jerusalem.

Advocacy Notes

A number of pro-Israel members of Congress have objected to the situation of Palestinian Christians and the Christian institutions that serve both Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

The impact on Palestinian Christians of Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land has been the focus of recent communications to the President and Congress. The PC(USA) joined 49 other leaders of national churches and church related organizations in a letter that was initiated by Churches for Middle East Peace. Prominent justice-minded evangelicals and heads of many Catholic orders signed along with the General Assembly's Stated Clerk Cliff Kirkpatrick. The church leaders also outlined Israel's bureaucratic tactics (denying visas and abandoning tax exemption provisions) that place the Christian institutions themselves at risk.

They wrote, "We agree with the widely held view that the separation barrier, as it deviates from the Green Line, is a tactic of Israel to claim land and water sources in the West Bank and Jerusalem that are necessary for a viable Palestinian state."

General Assembly

The 215th General Assembly (2003) in a comprehensive resolution on Israel and Palestine, asks members of the PC(USA) to "advocate for a just peace in the Middle East with their representatives in Congress, the Administration, United Nations officials, local/regional/national newspaper editors and other opinion makers."