Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

STIRRETT: A Two-State Path to Peace

A Canadian Contention

Published: Thursday, March 1, 2012

Updated: Friday, March 2, 2012 01:03

Time is running out for the only way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With each passing year, hope for a two-state solution fades.

While the continuation of this seemingly never-ending conflict can be disheartening, it is more important than ever to push for peace.

The Israel-Palestine conflict isn't black and white; one of its biggest problems is that it has been oversimplified. The Israeli government is not infallible, and neither is the Palestinians. Mistakes have been made on both sides. We have to look beyond the self-defeating blame game and toward the future.

As a Zionist, I believe in the right to self-determination for Jewish as well as Palestinian people. Not only is it moral to ameliorate the plight of the Palestinians, a two-state solution is in Israel's undeniable self-interest. The creation of a Palestinian state is the only way that Israel can retain its Jewish and democratic identity.

To support the creation of a Palestinian state is to affirm Israel's founding values. Giving up on the two-state solution means conceding that the only path forward is a binational entity.

This binational state would have a Palestinian majority, and Israel would lose its fundamental Jewish identity. The only way that Israel could remain Jewish under such a scenario would be to disenfranchise Palestinians, creating two levels of citizenship, which would undermine Israel's democratic foundation. Those who advocate for policies that reduce the likelihood of a two-state solution actually work against Israel's fundamental long-term interests.

Moreover, the day a two-state solution is finally realized will hopefully be the day that Israel's enemies lay down their arms. True, the creation of a two-state solution becomes a divorce between two peoples. But sometimes, recognizing a fundamental disagreement can be a good thing. As countless families can attest, sometimes taking this difficult, dividing step forward is the only way to achieve peace and rebuild. A shared binational country would be a disaster for both groups.

Unfortunately, the two-state solution is under attack on all sides. Hamas continues to promote virulent anti-Semitism and refuses to even recognize Israel's right to exist as a state. As long as Hamas controls Gaza and does not change its fundamental outlook, a Palestinian state will remain inconceivable.

The continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank poses another great threat. Over the past two decades, the number of Israeli settlers in the area has more than tripled, which makes drawing the contours of a Palestinian state even more difficult.

Complicating the issue further, the United States has a moral and strategic imperative to play a major role in the peace process.

Take Newt Gingrich's statement in a recent GOP debate that there is no such thing as the Palestinian people. Such offensive comments illustrate how the debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States has become more toxic than productive.

Efforts to cut U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority provides yet another example of such shortsighted behavior. Without such aid, the PA would be significantly weakened and Hamas would be emboldened. In essence, the United States would be destroying Israel's best chance of a partner for peace, which is why even the Netanyahu government opposed the proposal.

Nevertheless, the debate is gradually beginning to change in Washington. President Obama courageously outlined his support of a two-state solution in May 2011, a plan based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed-upon land swaps. Being pro-Israel means preserving a Jewish and democratic Israel, not necessarily supporting every policy of the Netanyahu government.

Americans are beginning to rally behind groups such as J Street, an organization with over 170,000 supporters that advocates for a two-state solution. In only a few weeks, J Street, in which I am involved, will hold a national conference of over 2,000 activists, demonstrating the political power of a movement that was founded only three years ago.

Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, once said, "If you will it, it is no longer a dream." It's time to transform the two-state solution from a dream to reality.

Scott Stirrett is a junior in the School of Foreign Service. He is the former chief of staff of the Georgetown University College Democrats and former chair and co-founder of D.C. Students Speak. A CANADIAN CONTENTION appears every other Friday.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

1 comments

Anonymous
Tue Mar 6 2012 09:33
Could someone explain this conundrum for me?

Why is it Muslims are free to violently conquer lands anywhere and everywhere without a word of protest from American Muslims, or any Muslims for that matter, but if Jews have a legally established homeland Muslims will never stop protesting against it? Why is this do you suppose? What explanation can be given other than as the Qur'an states repeatedly that Islam's goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate in which all non-Muslims are subjugated.

For instance, Mohammed was born around 571 AD thousands and thousands of years after Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism existed. But within a few centuries of Mohammed's birth Islam had violently conquered vast sections of Asia, all of North Africa and smaller sections of Southern Europe.

Now Muslims tell us that all this land belongs to them even though, for instance, in Afghanistan they killed every last Buddhist who once lived there. According to Muslim logic per Israel shouldn't this land belong to the Buddhists?

Or in North Africa all the Berbers have been forcibly converted to Islam or have been killed and now we're told all this vast landmass belongs to Islam. That's interesting, if not completely hypocritical. And what about Southern Thailand. Did anyone know that in the last several years something like 5,000 Buddhists have been killed by Muslims because, or so we're told, the land the Buddhists are on belongs to Islam. And Southern Russia? Muslims are relentlessly waging a slow reign of terror in Russia because, you guessed it, Russians are treating Muslims poorly and they should give up the Southern section of that country to Muslims.

Or, let's take Sudan as another example. How many millions have been killed in Sudan? How many babies and children have starved in Sudan while Islamists steal the food from aid compounds? How many women have Muslims gang-raped in Sudan all because that land belongs to Muslims and only Muslims. All other people can go somewhere else to live, I guess.

And Kashmir? The same. Despite Hindus having lived there for 3,000 years - something like 2,000+ years before Mohammed was born - Muslims tell us Kashmir belongs to them. Amazing logic isn't it?

And that brings us to Israel. Israel also belongs to Islam. Did you know that? It's true. Even though it's no bigger than a small pimple on the caliphate's ass it is still their land and they will fight to the death to prove their point.

Doesn't the logic here make a lot of sense. Isn't it as clear as day? Of course it is. The world belongs to Islam and we're mere players on their stage.





log out