The two-state solution is in Israel’s best interest
Advertisements
May 23, 2012
I am very proud of the role my father played, as small as it may have been, in the establishment of the State of Israel. In 1943, at the age of 16, he left Alexandria, Egypt, for Palestine to join the Hagana.
A little over a year later, after seeing action in Palestine as a Hagana member, he fought the Germans in northern Italy as a member of the Jewish Brigade.
After World War II, he returned to Palestine and took part in the Jewish armored convoys that brought vital supplies to the besieged Jewish community in Jerusalem. Later my father fought in Israel’s War of Independence. In the next Zionist chapter of his life, in the early 1950s, he was stationed in Morocco for five years in a clandestine mission to help Jews immigrate to Israel. That role eventually led him to a long career as an Israeli diplomat.
My father’s generation in the Jewish community of Palestine was unconditionally Zionist. They were willing to make heroic sacrifices and fight against all odds for what seemed so impossible, a Jewish State. They envisioned a democratic state that would be a manifestation of Jewish sovereignty over all aspects of their community. As it turns out, in 1948 they had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Almost 20 years later, in the course of defending itself, Israel had achieved another miraculous feat, resoundingly defeating its Arab enemies in the Six-Day War. Consequently the Gaza Strip and the West Bank came under its control. Naturally there was great euphoria. Land with long and deep Jewish history had come back into Jewish hands. Often the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is discussed as primarily a territorial dispute. However, the war had unintended consequences. It brought a significantly large Palestinian population under Israeli control. This development put in serious jeopardy the Zionist enterprise for which my father’s generation fought so heroically.
If the aim of Zionism was to establish a democratic Jewish state in the ancient homeland, then what should Israel seek to do in regard to the large Palestinian population in the territories captured in the Six-Day War? The danger is that demographics can turn out to be the silent killer of the Zionist enterprise.
Israel has three choices: One, keep the Palestinian population under its control and grant it civil rights; two, keep the Palestinian population under Israeli control without civil rights; or three, pursue a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the framework of a two-state solution.
Keeping the Palestinian population under Israeli control and granting it civil rights means that Israel will continue to be a democratic state, but it would lose its Jewish identity. The population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is roughly half Jewish and half non-Jewish. The non-Jewish population is not just the Palestinians, but also the Israeli-Arabs and other smaller minority groups.
Keeping the Palestinian population under Israeli control without civil rights — the de facto situation — means Israel will concede its democratic character. Obviously, the first two choices would undermine the fundamental identity of the State of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.
Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the framework of a two-state solution, on the other hand, is the only way for Israel to remain democratic and a Jewish state. The path to a two-state solution is full of risks, challenges, and obstacles. But we have to start by admitting that a two-state solution is not a favor to the Palestinians but rather a core Israeli interest. Having such a large and hostile population under Israeli control is not sustainable. The two-state solution must hinge on clear security measures and guarantees for Israel. It also must address the role of Hamas and its uncompromising approach to the conflict. But despite all the risks, doing nothing is a much greater risk because it means allowing, in time, the demographic situation to rise to a crisis level, where Israel will have much less of an opportunity to help shape a solution it can live with.
In the home in which I grew up Israel’s security and Jewish identity were paramount. The current situation is neither contributing to Israel’s long-term security nor is it strengthening its Jewish identity. That is why it’s in Israel’s best interest to resolve the conflict without delay.
I decided to join J Street, an important voice in the Jewish community, for the sake of giving voice to my father’s legacy. J Street’s vision addresses my concerns for the future of Israel. At J Street I find, from the grass-root level all the way to the organization’s leadership, unequivocal support for Israel. I see very deep concern for Israel’s security and a profound commitment to preserve its Jewish and democratic character for generations to come. It is because of this commitment that J Street advocates a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within the framework of the two-state solution. History will judge these times very harshly if the Zionist enterprise will fail under our watch.
Comments
Sherry Rosen
May 24, 2012
To the Editor:
As this thoughtful essay demonstrates, some of the strongest supporters of JStreet are committed Zionists and descendants of those who fought so hard to build the State of Israel, including Jeremy Ben-Ami, JStreet’s founder and president.
May we all come to realize, bim-heyra be’yameynu, that working tirelessly towards a two-state solution is truly the next phase of pro-Israel Zionist activity.
Stanley N. Katz
May 24, 2012
I was impressed by this quite moving statement from someone who speaks with authority. And, of course, I think that Moshe Asoulai is quite right. This is a moment when friends of Israel need to support it with just this sort of calm clarity.
Steve Klinghoffer
May 29, 2012
A two state solution is the official position of the United States government and the government of the State of Israel. However, a two state solution that includes one that is Juden frei and the other in which Arabs constitute a majority is abhorrent to almost all Jews.
To date the government of Israel has not had a partner with whom it can negotiate. Hamas which controls Gaza is publicly committed to the destruction of Eretz Yisrael. The PA which governs the West Bank declines repeated invitations to negotiate.
I find the leadership of J Street is not only misguided and but the positions they take give cover to the enemies of Israel who are committed to her destruction.
Irwin
May 29, 2012
So let’s follow Mr. Klinghoffer’s logic:
A two-state solution is the official position of the US government and Israel.
J Street supports a two-state solution.
J Street’s policies are misguided and the positions they take give cover to Israel’s enemies,
ERGO, the US government and government of the State of Israel are misguided and give cover to Israel’s enemies.
The odious use of the term “Judenrein” and the notion that Jewish residence in a future palestinian state is a major sticking point between the two sides is an invention of those who oppose a two-state solution. Show us one poll of Israelis that suggests a majority—or even a sizable minority—are concerned that Jews will not be allowed citizenship or residence rights in the Palestinian state. In truth, Israelis who support the two-state solution understand that peace depends on separation and a viable Palestinian state. Good luck with establishing a viable Palestinian state with a militant Jewish settler population within its borders.
Instead of attacking J Street, explain to us an alternative to the two-state solution that will preserve Israel as a Jewish democracy.
Sarit Catz
June 04, 2012
It’s good to know that Moshe Azoulai supports a two-state solution (“The two-state solution is in Israel’s best interest” May 24, 2012), but he seems to imply that there is some serious debate about this in the Jewish community. A two-state solution is the position of the United States government and the government of Israel. In fact, in a recent letter to Mahmoud Abbas inviting him to peace talks which Abbas declined, Prime Minister Netanyahu put this position in writing. The ones who do not support a two-state solution are the Palestinians. This is not just true of Hamas, which controls Gaza and whose charter advocates the destruction of Israel through jihad and the murder of all Jews around the world. This is also true of the Palestinian Authority, whose maps feature Palestine on all of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel and whose officials have expressed publicly their goal “to turn to the struggle to liberate Palestine - all of Palestine.”
Most troubling about Mr. Azoulai’s op-ed, however, is his pitch for J Street which he calls “an important voice in the Jewish community.” In a recent video of an internal J Street meeting posted online, a member freely admits, “We have some support and interest in the Jewish community. We get much more support outside the traditional Jewish community. We know that for political reasons we have to be sensitive to the composition of the leadership.” (Emphasis in original.) In addition, the video shows J Street Vice President of Field and Campaigns Carinne Luck saying, “Our theory of change and the one that we’ve been told is what people in the Hill and in the Administration what they’re looking to from us and it’s very specific - and we’re a primarily Jewish not exclusively Jewish organization - but they want to see us primarily moving Jews, American Jews. And so that is where the bulk of our resources go.” Rather than representing the views of the Jewish community to our elected leaders, the bulk of J Street resources go to doing just the opposite.
I wish it were true, as Azoulai writes, that in J Street there is “from the grass-root level all the way to the organization’s leadership, unequivocal support of Israel.” At an April meeting of the JCRC in Boston, according to several attendees, J Street Northeast Regional Director Melanie Harris said that, in the event of military action between Israel and Iran “J Street would not necessarily support Israel in a conflict, but would weigh the circumstances.” That sounds pretty equivocal. While J Street President Jeremy Ben Ami denies this was the intent of the remark, he admits that J Street holds positions that may be at odds with those of Israel and advocates for those positions. Even that is equivocal support.
As an example, remember that in 2011 J Street lobbied the Obama administration not to veto a UN Security Council resolution that would have condemned Israeli settlements beyond the 1949 armistice lines - not Chinese settlements in Tibet or Turkish settlements in Northern Cyprus. To the President’s credit, he did direct Ambassador Rice to veto the resolution. Regardless of your feelings about the settlements, this action by J Street can hardly be considered unequivocal or even support. In fact, this effort caused New York Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman to break with J Street, saying “The decision to endorse the Palestinian and Arab effort to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council is not the choice of a concerned friend trying to help. It is rather the befuddled choice of an organization so open-minded about what constitutes support for Israel that its brains have fallen out.”
I do not impugn Mr. Azoulai’s love of and support for Israel. I’m sure it is shared by most of the members of J Street. Unfortunately, I fear they are being misled by their leadership.
David AZULAY
June 05, 2012
Dear Moshe Azoulay,
May you please let me know the name of your father and where you grew up in morocco. We are from tangier, my father was born in Alexandria, Egypt and was very active in Zionism too. Maybe we are related?
Kind regards,
David
Chiara Witten
June 05, 2012
Moshe Azoulai wrote a very thoughtful article about his commitment to Israeli peace and security and the need to work in a realistic way for a two-state solution. As for the reply by Sarit Catz, there are so many problems with it that it is hard to see where to start in straightening things out. I will content myself with addressing three of her points.
1) A two-state solution is the position of the government of Israel.
This may be true in words but not in facts. The current government of Israel talks about a peace process, but their real policy consists of wasting time and putting facts on the ground that will make it harder and harder to ever have a two-state solution. This is a story that has gone on for a long time and things are only becoming more difficult. It is time for us to face facts in a realistic way before the chance for a two-state solution is truly gone.
Some people seem to think that a Palestinian state can consist of a chain of isolated enclaves connected by bridge and tunnels. That will never fly.
2) There is no partner for peace.
This is wrong again. Try asking former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the predecessor of the current Prime Minister. He engaged in serious negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for two years and by all accounts they were close to agreement on most of the serious points. Abbas has staked everything on negotiations with Israel and a two-state solution. If nothing is happening, maybe that is because under their current leadership, the Israelis are not a peace partner.
3) J Street does not support Israel unequivocally.
Ms. Catz confuses support for Israel with support with the current political leadership in Israel. If you love Israel, she thinks, you do not criticize her, you do not speak up even if you can see that the Israelis are cutting off the branch that they are sitting on.
If one of your children had an addiction problem – in this case addiction to settlements in occupied territories—would you not try everything to stop her from ruining her life, precisely because you love her?
Susie
June 09, 2012
If I may be practical for a moment:
The two-state notion is not a solution, it is a danger.
There have been other times in Jewish history when dangerous notions were put forward which were dignified by the term “solution”.
Those of us, like the undersigned, who oppose the notion of establishing yet another Arab state just a bike-ride away from Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem and Israel’s sole international airport are in good company. For example, both of Israel’s Nobel Peace Prize laureates, revered premiers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, were firm opponents of the Palestinian state notion.
There are plenty—plenty—of de-facto solutions that can be reasonable both for Israel and for any Arab individuals interested in living in the West Bank/Yehuda and Shomron.
Finally, many Israelis have come out in opposition to the two-state notion including senior Israeli ministers. I salute these and am proud to be one of them. American Jews who similarly are willing to come out and say that for reasons of justice and practicality, Palestinian state is a non-starter, are brave friends of Israel and should be commended.
Susie Dym, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), spokesperson for Mattot Arim - an Israeli grassroots organization working toward peace-for-peace since 1992