With the turbulence surrounding diplomacy and the Middle East peace process, it is more urgent than ever for civil society to unite around the obvious reality that a conflict-ending solution can only be attained through the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security.
The two-state solution became official U.S. policy under President George W. Bush, and it is today seen as a national security priority under President Barack Obama. It has been adopted internationally by the United Nations, the Middle East Quartet, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Arab League and by successive Israeli governments. It has also now come to define all mainstream American thinking about this issue, including the positions of the majority of both Arab- and Jewish-American organizations.
In the region, this policy is only opposed by radicals, such as the Iranian government, Hamas and Hezbollah, and by ideological extremists on the Israeli far right. In the West, opposition is restricted to activists on the extreme left and right political fringes.
However, too much of our politics has not yet come into harmony with this policy consensus.
On the positive side, recent months have witnessed an unprecedented consensus between the Obama administration and Congress. Longstanding supporters of Israel in Congress have clearly stated that the two-state solution serves American and Israeli strategic interests, and have accordingly supported the administration’s early efforts to lay the foundations for renewed peace talks and to build the institutions of a Palestinian state.
On the other hand, the old zero-sum attitudes — in which a gain for one side is seen as an inevitable loss for the other, and more energy is spent on scoring debating points than on reaching solutions — continue to dominate the relationship between the Palestinian and Israeli governments, and also between Arab and Jewish communities and organizations in America.
This dissonance between stated goals and actual behavior is at the heart of the difficulties facing the administration’s effort to resolve this conflict, and it must be overcome.
While professing a common objective, America’s Arab and Jewish communities have thus far avoided creating a cooperative dynamic. Cross-community cooperation has only been established among a fraction of organizations, while the center of gravity remains largely adversarial. The language of delegitimization and the constant search for “proof” of the other’s bad faith still define most rhetoric about the Arab-Israeli conflict, to the detriment of accomplishing what both communities say they want.
This might be an understandable (albeit profoundly destructive) dynamic between two foreign parties that are struggling to find a way out of a painful, active conflict. But it has no place in the American domestic political scene, in which the national interest in resolving this conflict must be paramount.
As the Obama administration forges ahead with building an international coalition for peace, a domestic coalition for a two-state solution needs to be created in this country. Its core purpose must be to communicate to political leaders, especially in Congress, the breadth of the coalition in favor of peace based on two states and the depth of commitment that it embodies. Members of Congress and other public figures need to be provided with sufficient support to truly embrace this approach, and to be confident that it comes at a political benefit and not a cost.
Such a coalition needs to crystallize around a nucleus of Arab and Jewish organizations. These two communities have the highest emotional and political stakes in the resolution of this conflict and the most detailed knowledge of the Middle East. Other Americans naturally look to them for leadership.
In addition, because of their deep personal and political relationships with Palestinians and Israelis respectively, these two communities are best positioned to support the administration’s efforts to bring the parties together for peace talks to ultimately end both the conflict and the occupation. A Jewish- and Arab-led coalition for peace can also demonstrate the commitment of the closest friends of the parties in the region to achieving a two-state agreement and show that these two communities — both here and in the Middle East — can work together to further their mutual interests.
Differences in nuance and emphasis — both within and between these two communities — are natural and healthy, as they foster debate and encourage new, creative ideas. The aim should not be to stifle such diversity, but rather to create the largest possible constituency for a peace agreement.
Such a coalition needs to be wide enough to encompass all organizations advocating a two-state solution, even if they have differences over why they support it, how to best reach this goal or even how to define it with precision. What is needed is a vehicle through which Arabs, Jews and other interested Americans can ensure that the sum-total of their efforts supports the overriding national security issue at stake.
All of us who want to end this conflict must now band together in common cause, shed outmoded and counterproductive attitudes, and give the necessary political support to leaders on all sides who are serious about achieving a solution. The time has come for our politics to finally be aligned with our shared policy goals.
Ziad J. Asali is president of the American Task Force on Palestine.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
As First Maharats Graduate, Roles for Orthodox Women Take Leap Forward
Samantha Power's Support for Israel Is Deeply Personal 
Why I Only Date Jewish Guys
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
Taking Aim at Corporate Jewish Burial Business
You've successfully signed up!
Until the Arabs are willing to recognize Israel, which is the first step necessary in any peace negotiation, there can never be a two state solution. Who would negotiate with anyone who refuses to recognize that you exist? By not recognizing Israel, it is apparent that the Arabs have another objective other than peace. Israel has given land many times in the past and all it got for them was more war. What makes establishing a two state arrangement any different than what the Arabs did with Gaza? This is nothing more than a worn out ploy. The sad thing is that no Arab country would ever recognize Israel in fear of retaliation from Arab extremists. So the game goes on and on and on...
Palestine is stolen and must be returned. You can have israel or peace, but not both. The Jewish community of the US can assist in absorbing the isrealis that must leave Palestine in order to have peace. Its that simple
I think the last two comments exemplifies what Ziad Asali was discussing in his article. Americans - Jewish, Arab or otherwise - need to decide whether they support, in principal, the Two State solution. Then they need to make common cause, despite their other differences, to advance this goal.
Otherwise we are moving towards a de-facto single state with Israel in firm control, and Palestinians will continue to live in disconnected cantons under a rigid regime of inequality.
Here we go again.Arabs first must recognise Israel! Where these zombies come from! Time and agan at various Arab summits the Arab nations have said that they are ready to recognize Israel.But they rightly ask which Israel! With its flosting border and unwilling to accepte UN Resolution 242 how can any body in hi right mind will garnt a phantom recognition!
Was it not Moshe dayan who famously said: "Israel' borders are where the Israeli army is!" Stop parrotting the lies! Zionism has proved to be a bankrupt racist ideology.
Ziad J. Asali is right on target. The two state solution is the only way to go in the region. The rejectionists on both sides are an impediment to the process. The problem is that they have exerted a disproportional amount of influence. They now talk of a "one state" solution where Jews and Palestinians live in harmony with one another, a totally unworkable idea which is not palatable to the overwhelming majorities on either side. The US and the EU must pressure Israel against expanding these useless settlements on the West Bank, a goal shared by nearly 80% of the Israelis. The Arab League in turn must put real pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah to reject Iranian weaponry in turn for a negotiated peace with Israel. Land for peace is the only way to go. It may not be in vogue but nobody on either side has yet to pose a better solution. The status quo is no solution!
I give Raed Kami big points for intelelctual honesty. That's what the Arabs think ladies and gentlemen. And no amount of western wishful thinking is going totchange that.
Kamal - Did you read the comment of Raed Kami? His is not saying that he'll live with Israel in certain borders. He is saying that there will be no Israel, and even her Jewish citizens will have to leave. So, Allan Singer's demand that Israel's legitimacy be recognized is not so outlandish. You claim that Arab nations have declared their willingness to recognize Israel. It would be more interesting to hear what are the borders of Israel that you recognize as legitimate. Since you condemn Zionism, I would imagine that you, too, don't recognize the legitimacy Israel's existence. So, why are you so upset with Allan's comment. By the way, Israel does accept resolution 242.
Michael K - The above article does not give any details of the two-state solution. So, without any details, it sounds so nice and convincing. The article doesn't give any details of Mr Asali's peace dream. It could be that it is self-evident to him that all the descendants of refugees have the "right of return". In such a scenario, the two state arrangement will include the Palestinian state which will not have any Jewish citizens (the settlements will not be allowed therein) - and it will include the other state which, obviously, will no longer be a Jewish state. So, there you have a "two-state solution" - but not a solution that also expresses the historic aspirations of the Jews. Now, if the choice is the status quo of today or a two-state solution without a Jewish majority state - which would you prefer?
You should note that the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is exactly because of my above analysis. They understand that such a recognition means that the Jews have a right to their own state, and therefore the Palestinian state will have to absorb the Palestinian population. That is not their vision of two states. In the Arab vision, the one state will be Palestinian while the other state will not be Jewish.