It’s time to bid farewell to the language of a "two-state solution." Let’s embrace a new vision – a comprehensive regional approach that resolves the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all.
I agree with everything you write. One important piece is missing: true reconciliation is unlikely to happen without a Zionist apology for the Nakba. This formal apology from the WZO will have resounding psychological reverberations among Jews and Arabs alike. Progressive Zionist Movement www.pzmove.org
Thanks Jackie. Ultimately when there are actual negotiations over the terms of an agreement - a really important piece of the equation will relate to the acknowledgements each side is willing to make of the other. For Palestinians, you are right in my opinion. It will be critical for there to be some form of apology/acknowledgement of the disaster of 1948-9. For Israelis, it will be critical for there to be some form of acknowledgement of Jewish connectivity to the land through history. I haven't addressed a lot of the specifics, but this aspect has always been an important part of diplomatic discussions.
This is a very important re-formulation which I support. I know I have been self-critical that for 20 years or so I just kept repeating my two-state solution mantra, publicly criticized BDS while defending the right to have that view, but didn't do enough to educate myself and speak out individually other than through supporting J Streeet and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom before that.
One issue: apparently the US cannot recognize Palestine now or it triggers various legal provisions which would harm our ability to provide aid to Palestinians. But the US can do this, now: make clear to its allies that while the US cannot now formally recognize Palestine we do not oppose other nations doing so, and that while we will not support full admission to the UN of Palestine until further along in the process, we promise to do so and feel that enhanced diplomatic ties including recognition by nations such as Mexico and so forth are not seen as hostile on our part.
Thanks Michael. Deeply appreciate your comment and your engagement over the years. You are correct about US law when it comes to Palestinian membership at the United Nations. The US could signal its intention to support membership at the UN earlier in the process without legal ramifications or much tangible meaning. In order, one day, for the US to officially support Palestinian statehood at the UN, there will need to be Congressional action. Such action should be tied as well to the broader comprehensive approach because Congress could at the same time address a Middle Eastern security regime and other topics that will be enticements for Arab states such as Saudi Arabia. Tying this all together in one package would ensure the broadest possible political support - something for everyone.
I tried to find that option. It seems this lighter grey is a Substack thing. If I'm wrong and anyone reads this who knows how to change the color of the type, please let us know!
I think this remains pollyannish. The Arab nations have never truly relinquished their desire to remove Israel from the region, despite their private acknowledgments of the endeavor's impracticality. They have used a mostly willing Palestinian populace as pawns toward these ends, at least since Arafat left the scene. Most important is that we can have all the leadership buy in we want but as long as the peoples of the Arab nations (and other Muslim majority countries) still view the Jews as the "sons of pigs and apes", the only viable solution for them will be the final solution.
How can the territory, the actual land with its intricate and intermingled pattern of settlement, be divided into two states, one for 'Israel' , one for 'Palestine '..?
How can the present Zionist-Israeli regime of apartheid laws based on religio/ ethnic discrimination be ended?
Following up on Michael's comment: As he points out, the 23 state solution still includes all of the problems inherent in a two-state solution since a Palestinian state is part of the deal. From a practical point of view, the territory occupied by the settlers isn't just the specific settlement boundaries--it's more like almost all of Area C (and perhaps B). That is where settlers have freedom of movement, and that is where Israel operates a de-facto government and that is where settlers always are protected by Israeli security forces. Does anyone actually think it is possible that Israel would agree to replace Israeli control and security with full Palestinian control and security right at the settlement boundaries? If not, then the objective of swapping land to preserve the settlements while keeping Palestine's territory at it's pre-1967 size is not feasible, and the actual possibilities (if they exist) look a lot more like the Kushner peace plan from the first Trump administration.
Regarding Eisenhower: One problem that he made a lot bigger was Vietnam. Not sure that worked out so well.
I have three immediate reactions. One, I am not sure that enlarging the scope of actors makes the problem any more manageable. Something like this has been on the table for quite a while. It began prior to and alongside Oslo with the multilaterals, and the Saudi Initiative offered something similar. But Israel never quite accepted the perceived cost of a Palestinian state. Relatedly, this remains something of a two-state solution now nestled in a regional approach to the crisis. There still must be two states in this scenario and the obstacles (refugees, Jerusalem) are still the same. Third, why should we think that Israelis would be any more open to this approach now than it was before? If anything, I can imagine reasons why it would be more resistant. Hate to sound hopeless, but here we are.
"23 State solution" is a very nice slogan. But it doesn't really mean that much. We could both list all the different peace plans and proposals put forward over the decades, by Administrations, various Think Tanks and countless opeds.
I won't go into the obvious issue of hundreds of thousands of settlers now living in the West Bank or Jerusalem. Their rights have to be protected and defended. That would be a big ask anyhow. But post-October 7th (and even before, as Israel experienced frequent terror attacks; support for the steps Israel had already taken over the years was vastly undercut.)
First on the grass roots level of the Arab World (and beyond); there is no great love of Israel - to put it mildly. And whatever current Arab governments might agree to either with Israel or with the US or UN; they or their successor governments could easily reverse. Over the years; We've seen enough such changes in governments in the Middle East. And enough reversal of policy towards Israel. And there is no guarantee in the World that will ensure that won't happens.
Second: Guarantees for Israel - Arab guarantees; UN Guarantees; even US guarantees are not adequate. Especially as the World changes. Israel has to be able to ultimately be able to rely on its own resources to defend itself and if necessary to act. In Israel's previous Disengagements from Lebanon and Gaza; Israel leaders said if didn't work out; could and would act. And so they did but only after years of lesser acts. And only at terrible cost to Israel.
But ultimately IF there's going to be a "Two State Solution'" on PARTS of the "West Bank" and Gaza. And the old link to Jordan might sound polemical; but there is a lot of logic to it....Israel has to be safe secure. And any commitments made by the Palestinians are ultimately just words. We saw how Hamas acted during the Oslo era.
The ultimate need is for the Palestinians to genuinely end their delegitimization, denigration and efforts to destroy Israel. Accept the legitimacy of Jews to Israel; to Jewish rights Jerusalem. Give up their calls for the "Right of Return" ...Integrate into areas outside of 1948 or 1967 Israel. To accept there are Jewish rights to live in the "Palestinian areas" just as there are a couple of million Arabs living inside "Green Line" Israel. It's no accident that there are so few Jews these days living in the Arab World or Iran where once there were.
No question these are tough asks for the Palestinians. But they're tough asks precisely for the reason they are so necessary. And it's not a question of "right or wrong" or minimizing what Palestinians feel are grievances. My concern is Israel's survival. Assuming that too is your ultimate goal; everything has to be put into that context. So yes a policy can be suggested by the US (as it was during the days of Henry Kissinger); but Israel has to be the decider
And of course Israel needs to feel others have its back. And that feeling is lessened when groups in America seek to apply pressure re arms and aid and sanctions on Israel to impose (or pressure) Israel into a result not in its best interests.
As I look around - and I'm not going to get into Israeli politics and politicals realities - I see a lot of hate towards Israel; but not a lot of love! And I doubt after October 7th "actions" is going to change that!
Thanks again Michael for engaging this week. I do think it would be very healthy for the Jewish people if there could be rational, reasoned debate over the very issues you raise and that we've discussed in a couple of posts now.
It's totally within bounds for us to look at the situation for Israel and the Jewish people and come to different conclusions on the best road forward.
For me, as I indicated a couple of weeks ago, I view the path that Israel's current government is taking it down as far more dangerous and risky to the long-term security and well-being of the state of Israel than some of the risks that are definitely associated with the 23-state solution as I've outlined it.
And it's not just a slogan. It is a substantively different approach. The big 'get' for Israel in a two-state arrangement - let's call it the prize for making tough concessions - is the creation of a state of Palestine. I think we've both come to see that the Israeli public simply doesn't see that as such a great deal and that's why the two-state framework has lost credibility.
But the "get" for Israel in a 23-state solution is so much bigger and more interesting. It's a setting of the country's international borders - which to this day don't exist. It's recognition of the state of Israel by all of its Sunni Arab neighbors. It's the acceptance across the Muslim world (Indonesia, etc.) that would follow. It's the end of occupation which in turn leads to a major diminution in the intensity of anti-Israel activism globally.
So I beg to differ that it's just a slogan - it's a whole different ball game.
And, yes, many difficult issues will have to be worked through including the settlers - the vast majority of whom, as you know, would be able to remain inside Israel's new negotiated borders. That's always been accepted by the PLO. There are intriguing options being discuss about allowing settlers in farther-flung areas to stay in a state of Palestine as citizens of Israel but residents of Palestine in return for an equivalent number of Palestinian citizens to live in Israel as residents.
There's a lot more to say on security (which I addressed in an earlier post) and on how this approach is actually the only way to actually defeat Hamas. But I'll leave it there for now.
And if you happen to speak to your former colleagues suggest to them that it may be better for the health of the American Jewish community to engage in productive debate and argument as we are rather than silly social media name-calling.
Amy, on this I have to agree largely with Michael - there is no way I can see (in our lifetimes) the Israeli people agreeing that the state of Palestine should have a full fledged armed forces/military. What is meant by "demilitarized" is only that - no army, airforce, etc.
However, the Palestinian Authority does have US-trained and funded/equipped security forces with, as Michael indicates, severe limits on the weapons available. The PA security forces actually have a good relationship with the IDF and their coordination is both an indciation of the possibilities for the future and a sore spot for the Palestinian people who regard the PASF as simply implementers of occupation.
Right now, the PASF is actively fighting with militants in Jenin in what is shaping up as a critical test for the PA's ability to regain control of some of the areas of the West Bank where it has effectively lost charge. The Israeli security cabinet last week - in a very unpublicized way - approved provision of equipment and supplies for the PASF for use in this mission.
One person's defense force is another person's attack force. No way Israel is going to allow the possibility of another October 7th. You can say "no fair" but that's the way it has to be. (Like the Israel PLO/PA Agreements - limiting severely weapons available to Palestinian force)
I agree with everything you write. One important piece is missing: true reconciliation is unlikely to happen without a Zionist apology for the Nakba. This formal apology from the WZO will have resounding psychological reverberations among Jews and Arabs alike. Progressive Zionist Movement www.pzmove.org
Thanks Jackie. Ultimately when there are actual negotiations over the terms of an agreement - a really important piece of the equation will relate to the acknowledgements each side is willing to make of the other. For Palestinians, you are right in my opinion. It will be critical for there to be some form of apology/acknowledgement of the disaster of 1948-9. For Israelis, it will be critical for there to be some form of acknowledgement of Jewish connectivity to the land through history. I haven't addressed a lot of the specifics, but this aspect has always been an important part of diplomatic discussions.
Why wait for negotiations to offer an apology? Perhaps a Zionist Apology will hasten the possibility of negotiations.
No apologies will make the Palestinians agree to drop their demand for right of return.
This is a very important re-formulation which I support. I know I have been self-critical that for 20 years or so I just kept repeating my two-state solution mantra, publicly criticized BDS while defending the right to have that view, but didn't do enough to educate myself and speak out individually other than through supporting J Streeet and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom before that.
One issue: apparently the US cannot recognize Palestine now or it triggers various legal provisions which would harm our ability to provide aid to Palestinians. But the US can do this, now: make clear to its allies that while the US cannot now formally recognize Palestine we do not oppose other nations doing so, and that while we will not support full admission to the UN of Palestine until further along in the process, we promise to do so and feel that enhanced diplomatic ties including recognition by nations such as Mexico and so forth are not seen as hostile on our part.
Thanks Michael. Deeply appreciate your comment and your engagement over the years. You are correct about US law when it comes to Palestinian membership at the United Nations. The US could signal its intention to support membership at the UN earlier in the process without legal ramifications or much tangible meaning. In order, one day, for the US to officially support Palestinian statehood at the UN, there will need to be Congressional action. Such action should be tied as well to the broader comprehensive approach because Congress could at the same time address a Middle Eastern security regime and other topics that will be enticements for Arab states such as Saudi Arabia. Tying this all together in one package would ensure the broadest possible political support - something for everyone.
Please make print color more readable. Hard on older eyes
I tried to find that option. It seems this lighter grey is a Substack thing. If I'm wrong and anyone reads this who knows how to change the color of the type, please let us know!
I think this remains pollyannish. The Arab nations have never truly relinquished their desire to remove Israel from the region, despite their private acknowledgments of the endeavor's impracticality. They have used a mostly willing Palestinian populace as pawns toward these ends, at least since Arafat left the scene. Most important is that we can have all the leadership buy in we want but as long as the peoples of the Arab nations (and other Muslim majority countries) still view the Jews as the "sons of pigs and apes", the only viable solution for them will be the final solution.
How can the territory, the actual land with its intricate and intermingled pattern of settlement, be divided into two states, one for 'Israel' , one for 'Palestine '..?
How can the present Zionist-Israeli regime of apartheid laws based on religio/ ethnic discrimination be ended?
I ask.
Thanks for a ray of hope. I was actively advocating for 2-states 50+ years ago (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah_Collective) and pretty well had given up 10-15+ years ago.
Following up on Michael's comment: As he points out, the 23 state solution still includes all of the problems inherent in a two-state solution since a Palestinian state is part of the deal. From a practical point of view, the territory occupied by the settlers isn't just the specific settlement boundaries--it's more like almost all of Area C (and perhaps B). That is where settlers have freedom of movement, and that is where Israel operates a de-facto government and that is where settlers always are protected by Israeli security forces. Does anyone actually think it is possible that Israel would agree to replace Israeli control and security with full Palestinian control and security right at the settlement boundaries? If not, then the objective of swapping land to preserve the settlements while keeping Palestine's territory at it's pre-1967 size is not feasible, and the actual possibilities (if they exist) look a lot more like the Kushner peace plan from the first Trump administration.
Regarding Eisenhower: One problem that he made a lot bigger was Vietnam. Not sure that worked out so well.
comprehensive regional agreement
UN Security Council resolution
Palestine recognized as a state and admitted to the UN as a member state
yes yes yes
I have three immediate reactions. One, I am not sure that enlarging the scope of actors makes the problem any more manageable. Something like this has been on the table for quite a while. It began prior to and alongside Oslo with the multilaterals, and the Saudi Initiative offered something similar. But Israel never quite accepted the perceived cost of a Palestinian state. Relatedly, this remains something of a two-state solution now nestled in a regional approach to the crisis. There still must be two states in this scenario and the obstacles (refugees, Jerusalem) are still the same. Third, why should we think that Israelis would be any more open to this approach now than it was before? If anything, I can imagine reasons why it would be more resistant. Hate to sound hopeless, but here we are.
A few points/response - once again off the cuff responding to Jeremy Ben-Ami's piece The 23-State Solution https://substack.com/home/post/p-154149159
"23 State solution" is a very nice slogan. But it doesn't really mean that much. We could both list all the different peace plans and proposals put forward over the decades, by Administrations, various Think Tanks and countless opeds.
I won't go into the obvious issue of hundreds of thousands of settlers now living in the West Bank or Jerusalem. Their rights have to be protected and defended. That would be a big ask anyhow. But post-October 7th (and even before, as Israel experienced frequent terror attacks; support for the steps Israel had already taken over the years was vastly undercut.)
First on the grass roots level of the Arab World (and beyond); there is no great love of Israel - to put it mildly. And whatever current Arab governments might agree to either with Israel or with the US or UN; they or their successor governments could easily reverse. Over the years; We've seen enough such changes in governments in the Middle East. And enough reversal of policy towards Israel. And there is no guarantee in the World that will ensure that won't happens.
Second: Guarantees for Israel - Arab guarantees; UN Guarantees; even US guarantees are not adequate. Especially as the World changes. Israel has to be able to ultimately be able to rely on its own resources to defend itself and if necessary to act. In Israel's previous Disengagements from Lebanon and Gaza; Israel leaders said if didn't work out; could and would act. And so they did but only after years of lesser acts. And only at terrible cost to Israel.
But ultimately IF there's going to be a "Two State Solution'" on PARTS of the "West Bank" and Gaza. And the old link to Jordan might sound polemical; but there is a lot of logic to it....Israel has to be safe secure. And any commitments made by the Palestinians are ultimately just words. We saw how Hamas acted during the Oslo era.
The ultimate need is for the Palestinians to genuinely end their delegitimization, denigration and efforts to destroy Israel. Accept the legitimacy of Jews to Israel; to Jewish rights Jerusalem. Give up their calls for the "Right of Return" ...Integrate into areas outside of 1948 or 1967 Israel. To accept there are Jewish rights to live in the "Palestinian areas" just as there are a couple of million Arabs living inside "Green Line" Israel. It's no accident that there are so few Jews these days living in the Arab World or Iran where once there were.
No question these are tough asks for the Palestinians. But they're tough asks precisely for the reason they are so necessary. And it's not a question of "right or wrong" or minimizing what Palestinians feel are grievances. My concern is Israel's survival. Assuming that too is your ultimate goal; everything has to be put into that context. So yes a policy can be suggested by the US (as it was during the days of Henry Kissinger); but Israel has to be the decider
And of course Israel needs to feel others have its back. And that feeling is lessened when groups in America seek to apply pressure re arms and aid and sanctions on Israel to impose (or pressure) Israel into a result not in its best interests.
As I look around - and I'm not going to get into Israeli politics and politicals realities - I see a lot of hate towards Israel; but not a lot of love! And I doubt after October 7th "actions" is going to change that!
Thanks again Michael for engaging this week. I do think it would be very healthy for the Jewish people if there could be rational, reasoned debate over the very issues you raise and that we've discussed in a couple of posts now.
It's totally within bounds for us to look at the situation for Israel and the Jewish people and come to different conclusions on the best road forward.
For me, as I indicated a couple of weeks ago, I view the path that Israel's current government is taking it down as far more dangerous and risky to the long-term security and well-being of the state of Israel than some of the risks that are definitely associated with the 23-state solution as I've outlined it.
And it's not just a slogan. It is a substantively different approach. The big 'get' for Israel in a two-state arrangement - let's call it the prize for making tough concessions - is the creation of a state of Palestine. I think we've both come to see that the Israeli public simply doesn't see that as such a great deal and that's why the two-state framework has lost credibility.
But the "get" for Israel in a 23-state solution is so much bigger and more interesting. It's a setting of the country's international borders - which to this day don't exist. It's recognition of the state of Israel by all of its Sunni Arab neighbors. It's the acceptance across the Muslim world (Indonesia, etc.) that would follow. It's the end of occupation which in turn leads to a major diminution in the intensity of anti-Israel activism globally.
So I beg to differ that it's just a slogan - it's a whole different ball game.
And, yes, many difficult issues will have to be worked through including the settlers - the vast majority of whom, as you know, would be able to remain inside Israel's new negotiated borders. That's always been accepted by the PLO. There are intriguing options being discuss about allowing settlers in farther-flung areas to stay in a state of Palestine as citizens of Israel but residents of Palestine in return for an equivalent number of Palestinian citizens to live in Israel as residents.
There's a lot more to say on security (which I addressed in an earlier post) and on how this approach is actually the only way to actually defeat Hamas. But I'll leave it there for now.
And if you happen to speak to your former colleagues suggest to them that it may be better for the health of the American Jewish community to engage in productive debate and argument as we are rather than silly social media name-calling.
The concept of a demilitarized state of Palestine is problematic. Palestinians deserve the right to provide their citizens with credible self defense.
Following WWII the Japanese model of a self defense force could be instructive.
Amy, on this I have to agree largely with Michael - there is no way I can see (in our lifetimes) the Israeli people agreeing that the state of Palestine should have a full fledged armed forces/military. What is meant by "demilitarized" is only that - no army, airforce, etc.
However, the Palestinian Authority does have US-trained and funded/equipped security forces with, as Michael indicates, severe limits on the weapons available. The PA security forces actually have a good relationship with the IDF and their coordination is both an indciation of the possibilities for the future and a sore spot for the Palestinian people who regard the PASF as simply implementers of occupation.
Right now, the PASF is actively fighting with militants in Jenin in what is shaping up as a critical test for the PA's ability to regain control of some of the areas of the West Bank where it has effectively lost charge. The Israeli security cabinet last week - in a very unpublicized way - approved provision of equipment and supplies for the PASF for use in this mission.
Thanks, Jeremy. That actually sounds like what a Palestinian self defense force should be doing. It’s not demilitarized.
One person's defense force is another person's attack force. No way Israel is going to allow the possibility of another October 7th. You can say "no fair" but that's the way it has to be. (Like the Israel PLO/PA Agreements - limiting severely weapons available to Palestinian force)
All these comments reinforce my point that the 23 proposal just will rehash all the previous obstacles to a two state solution.