Other than those who favor the destruction or disappearance of Israel, virtually everyone interested in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict presumes a two-state solution. Is this realistic? That is a different question from, is this just? A two-state solution might be just, but not effective.
By a two-state solution, most mean an independent and peaceful Israel, and an independent and peaceful Palestine. They do not mean this: an independent Israel whose existence is rejected, and whose citizens are regularly attacked, by an independent Palestine. Which two-state solution is the more likely?
Hamas, which rejects the legitimacy and existence of Israel, controls Gaza part of the territory of the proposed Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, which controls the rest of the territory of the proposed Palestinian state, is less open about its rejection of Israel. At a minimum, one may say this: The PA is the successor to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. This sentiment carries over to many of the factions of the PA. This sentiment still pervades the textbooks and the media of the PA.
The main difference between the PA, Hamas and the PLO is the language of the PA leadership. Even that is questionable, however. The leadership, for example, praises Sam Kuntar, the convicted murderer of Israelis recently released to Lebanon.
How, then, is a peaceful two-state solution to be arrived at? The PA focuses on borders, armaments, settlements, freedom of air space and other such practical, admittedly critical areas. But the PA never speaks of accepting Israel as a Jewish state. The PA speaks pragmatically of living in peace with Israel because Israel is too strong to be destroyed.
Keep in mind, these reservations of the PA have nothing to do with Israeli settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River. Were Israel to dismantle each and every one of those settlements, the PA would still not accept Israel as a Jewish state, only as a powerful one. Top PA negotiator Saeb Erekat has said so.
Weve said before, and say again: The only path to a real peace is to confront the hatred of Israel taught in PA textbooks and broadcast over PA media.
Peacemakers, be they Israeli, American or European, must tell the PA that there will be no Palestinian state without a prior, radical revolution political, ideological, religious in Palestinian attitudes toward Israel, Israelis and Jews. Without that attitudinal transformation, a two-state solution will not be a solution, will not be peaceful. Rather, it would have the same effect as the Hamas takeover of Gaza: an exacerbation of the conflict. A firing of rockets into Israel and a stockpiling of weapons for attacks on Israel.
To be effective, a two-state solution must be more than a scaffolding, a slogan, a bare-bones political framework. An independent state, by itself, will soften none of the hatred toward Israel. It will only offer more opportunity to stoke that hatred precisely what an independent Hamas has done. For a two-state political arrangement to be peaceful, it must become a constellation, a fully integrated idea that acknowledges and overcomes the deeper human blockages which scuttle the best efforts of political leaders.
