bbauska wrote:Is Palestine supportive of a two-state solution, RickyP? You seem to be saying that Israel should support a two-state solution, but do Palestinians?
Personally, I support a two-state solution, and hold the state responsible for the bad acts that it's citizens commit. If settlements are created in Palestine, the Israeli government should held responsible. If rockets are launched into Israel, then it could be an attack on a nation.
The Palestinian position is that Israel allow all Palestinian refugees to return while the West Bank should be cleared of the settlements and its Jewish residents. Barghouti of the PLO Exec Committee said after Kerry's speech: “First, you cannot make the issue of Palestinian refugees only an issue of compensation; you cannot deny people their right to return to their home,” Second, he said that Israel cannot be recognized as a Jewish state. In the past the Palestinians said that all Jewish settlers would have to leave the West Bank. In other words, one state (Israel) would have an additional 1,000,000 + Palestinian residents whereas the other state would be the Palestinian state, presumably Jewish free. They also denounced Kerry's formulation for Jerusalem.
In other words, with all the focus on the Israeli reaction, the bottom line is that none of these proposals would bring peace for Israel as they are not acceptable to the other side.
For what it's worth I share below my Rabbi's view of the situation. For perspective, he is extremely liberal devoting much of his time to hunger, gun control, fair housing, and other issues that are typically associated with the left:
My suggestion is that before people post they should listen to what Israelis think and feel, especially because they are the ones sending their children into the military. Then, only after deep listening, people who do not live in Israel should choose which of the many Israeli opinions they agree with and support. Israel is a dynamic democracy with many points of view.
From what I can sense, the general Israeli consensus, including liberal Israelis who support President Obama, is that Secretary Kerry threw Israel under the bus. Yes, he gave a fiery defense of the two-state solution, but that is not what the U.N. Resolution actually said. The resolution made no distinction between settlements along border blocks, settlements on hilltops deep in disputed territory, and East Jerusalem. The Israelis felt unfairly blamed for the situation as the emphasis was on settlements and not on the actions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. And while "friends don't let friends drive drunk," as Secretary Kerry said, Rabbi Donniel Hartman of the Hartman Institute responded, "Friends don't bring up friends for censure by the Security Council."
Something else that is indicative: Israeli Channel 2 news stopped airing the Kerry speech after a half-hour, and Channels 1 and 10 gave it even less time.
American pundits, and American Jews, keep speaking of a two-state solution. However, none of the largest Israeli political parties: Likud, Zionist Union, or Yesh Atid, believe a two-state solution is currently a viable option. Do we presume to know better than they do? Israel has tried a negotiated two-state solution (in 2001 and 2008) and unilateralism (in 2006 with Gaza). Both have met with rejection for the former and war with the latter.
So if there is no solution, the question changes: how can Israel make the current situation better and safer and work towards a more secure future? Those on the right in Israel believe the time is right to annex Judea and Samaria and to keep building in all other areas of the West Bank. They see settlements as either a religious right or as a defensive barrier to the hostile forces around them, won through legitimate defensive war. Those on the left believe it is time to separate from the Palestinians and dismantle only the hilltop settlements (about 20% of the settlements), but Israel would still retain military control over the West Bank to ensure Iranian proxies do not move in. They see hilltop settlements as a liability, not as security.
Those being the two live options (and not some other fantasy dreamed up in an American living room or think tank), I personally am much more convinced of the second option proposed by the left of dismantling the hilltop settlements but retaining military control. Building settlements deep in disputed territory appears to make life less secure for Israel, not more secure. The religious zealotry (and I am saying this as a rabbi) of some of the settlers is also very dangerous. Finally, I question what is the end goal of building more hilltop settlements amidst Arab villages: Israel cannot absorb 2.6 million Arabs with a 4.1 birthrate. Therefore, I side with the Yesh Atid and Zionist Union Israeli voices.
Siding with an Israeli voice is much different than making up your own opinion based on CNN. I would encourage everyone in the Jewish community who chimes in on this debate begin from the point of view of "how can I support Israel?" This means listening to Israelis, supporting an informed Israeli point of view, and not presuming what is best for them. Israelis have to live the consequences of how to live alongside Palestinians, not us. We need some humility.