Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said only one wildly wrong thing in his September 29 interview with Yediot Aharonot, Israel’s largest-circulation newspaper: “The time has come to say these things.” Twenty-nine months after becoming Israel’s prime minister, quite literally on his way out the door — possibly to indictment on charges of corruption — now the time has come?
Yet “these things” to which Olmert was referring are, in fact, not only the right things but for all practical purposes the only things that really matter. When it comes to the safety and welfare of the Jewish state, there is one issue, just one, that rises above all others — and soon it will be too late to deal with that issue.
I am referring, of course, to a two-state solution.
Not very long ago, the near-universal wisdom was that no matter how long delayed, the ultimate resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. That wisdom was at the heart of American diplomacy in the region, it was shared fully by the European Union, it was the formal view of Israeli governments (and people) and it became the formal policy of the Palestinian Authority. The terrible frustrations, over the years, were that diplomacy and negotiations did not seem to be advancing the two-state prospect, that the attention of the parties was easily diverted, that in the meantime new “facts on the ground” were rendering the prospect more and more unlikely.
Now, a rising chorus proclaims the near-death of a two-state solution. Whether such warnings are part of a bluff intended to get the Israelis to move more resolutely toward two states or, instead, are meant finally to express the actual preference of those who make them, does not matter all that much. As Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University and a longtime moderate, put it in a an essay in the September 29 issue of Newsweek, one group “believes that one-state talk might help knock some sense into the heads of Israeli decision-makers,” while the other “prefers a one-state solution because it would create a government they would eventually control as a demographic majority.” Nusseibeh himself, to his credit, recognizes that “the Israelis will never agree to anything” other than two states, and that while “[m]any Palestinians think a single state might be ideal — since it would involve the defeat of the Zionist project and its replacement by a binational country that would eventually be ruled by its Arab majority … many ships have been wrecked on such rocks before. And the one state likely to emerge from a cataclysmic conflict would likely to be anything but ideal.”
Nusseibeh is hardly the only prominent Palestinian to engage in stark speculation. Writing in The Wall Street Journal recently, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas recently predicted that “the parameters of the debate are apt to shift dramatically” if the sides don’t reach a deal for two states soon. “Israel’s continued settlement expansion and land confiscation in the West Bank makes physical separation of our two peoples increasingly impossible,” he wrote. And so also a growing number of others.
And who can blame the gloomy prognosticators, when Israel continues to expand rather than contract its presence in the West Bank and especially in East Jerusalem, where, in the last 15 years, Israel has built 13 new neighborhoods, home to some 250,000 Jews? And who can blame them when Giora Eiland, a reserve major-general and former head of Israel’s National Security Council, argues that “the current formulation of the two-state solution is untenable.” Speaking at a Washington Institute for Near East Policy conference in September, Eiland observed that the maximum that Israel is politically able to give is less than the minimum Palestinians are politically able to accept. His proposal? That Jordan take over security control for the West Bank, never mind that there is doubtless an Arabic equivalent to the Yiddish aphorism, “With a healthy head you shouldn’t crawl into a sick bed.”
So Ehud Olmert has now come around, has accepted the perspective of Peace Now: Anything other than a two-state solution signals the end of the Jewish state. Nor is his a death-bed conversion. More than a year ago, he said, publicly, that “the state of Israel is finished” unless each side gets a state of its own. And just weeks ago, he spoke bluntly to his Cabinet, telling them that Israel “has no choice but to abandon the lands it captured during the 1967 war. Forty years after the Six Day War, the international community’s willingness to accept Israel as a binational state [i.e., a one-state solution] is growing,” he said. “Some day, sooner than we think, we will long for the solutions that some of us reject today.”
In his Yediot interview, he goes even further: “We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”
It is possible to believe that but for the need to keep his governing coalition alive, Olmert would have said these things back when they might have mattered more. It is reasonable to believe that a truth spoken later is better than a truth spoken never. It is plausible to suppose that had it not been for the corruption charges that drove Olmert from office, he’d finally have mustered the courage — as prime minister — to do what he finally did, to tell it like it is. Alas, it is neither possible nor reasonable nor even plausible to believe that anyone — whether Israeli or Palestinian — paid much attention to Olmert’s valedictory interview.
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.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
You've successfully signed up!
The central flaw of Peace Now platform is the word "now". The word hints that it is indeed possible to achieve a solution "now" because it depends only on us (on the Jewish side of the conflict). Mr Fein makes it clear that this is his position: The rising chorus proclaiming the near-death of the two-state solution might be "part of a bluff intended to get the Israelis to move more resolutely..." Note that it's the Israeli side that should move more resolutely - that is the attitude of Peace Now. It's as if there Palestinian side is not even a factor in the ongoing conflict. If Israel is "wise", there will be peace; if Israel is "stubborn", the conflict remains. However, this is an attitude that belittles the Palestinian people - an attitude that does not define them as equals. Peace Now is expressing a type of haughtiness. The Palestinian side is not really interested in a two-state solution. True, this is their obligation under the Oslo Agreement - but it is not their true position. Surely the rise of Hamas as the central political factor in Palestinian life makes it clear that the struggle against Israel will continue no matter what - even after a two-state peace arrangement signed by the PA and Israel. But even Fatah is not really moderate. Mr Fein declares Sari Nusseibeh to be a "long-time moderate". Well, it would depend on your criteria for moderation. Compared to Arafat, he is a moderate - but he's not a moderate compared to a Jewish moderate (such as Mr Fein himself). Check out the website of his university, Al-Quds. There you'll find a link about the history of Jerusalem (http://www.alquds.edu/gen_info/index.php?page=jerusalem_history). Al-Quds University wishes to inform the public that there is no connection between today's Jews and Israelis and an "idealized" (i.e. mythical or unhistorical) community of Israelites. In the list of peoples that ruled this land - surprise - there are no Jews (only "Zionists" in modern times): "Palestine was conquered in times past by ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Mamlukes, Ottomans, the British, the Zionists". Without getting into a debate about the veracity of the Palestinian narrative, it's quite clear that Prof Nusseibeh is a "moderate" whose point of reference is the total illegitimacy of of the Jewish narrative. That by definition is not moderation. I should add that Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the PA, is also regarded to be a moderate. Yet, very few know that he has written a PhD thesis (Moscow University) in which he denies the Holocaust. So, he too is a moderate only in comparison to the extremists - not in comparison to Mr Fein. The rising opinion in the Palestinian community (and in the academic world as well) is indeed the "one-state solution". However, you have to listen carefully. The Palestinian struggle is against "Zionism", not against "Israel". Even in the framework of a one-state solution, Zionism will continue to exist. The Hebrew-speaking community, the new yishuv, is the creation of the Zionist ideal. The struggle will continue, therefore, within the framework also of the one state, simply because of the perceived illegitimacy of the yishuv. The issue, Mr Fein, is not that Israel is not acting firmly to reach an agreement. You place the burden of resolving the conflict on Israel, because it's only the Jewish side of the conflict that you really understand. The other side is a mystery to you - their language, their social codes, their aspirations. The conflict will end only when the Palestinian side accepts the legitimacy of the Hebrew yishuv. After accepting this legitimacy, the finalizing of peace will be a matter of technical details. Perhaps it will be a one-state arrangement, perhaps there will be two states. It doesn't really matter. As long as the Palestinian side rejects our story as a myth, they will continue the struggle despite all theoretical agreements and understandings. Indeed, the agreements are simply part of conducting a conflict from the Palestinian perspective.
Last year's Holocaust denial conference in Teheran raised a lot of eyebrows. Why would a president of a state be busying himself with an historical issue from 65 years ago? The answer is that the Holocaust is perceived by many as being the background or the justification for the founding of Israel; hence, negating its historic truth is a tool in the war against Israel's legitimacy (and existence). This is why Mahmoud Abbas wrote his doctoral thesis about the Holocaust. He claimed that the spreading of rumors about the murder of Jews was a ploy to cause their unjustified flight to Palestine. Similarly, I wonder why the university website of Sari Nusseibeh would busy us with theories about King David's existence (or non-existence) - or would claim that since the builder of the Temple, King Herod, wasn't a Jew (actually, he was) then there was no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Generally, university websites are meant to present courses of study, degrees offered, faculty, etc - not the historical legacies of neighbors. However, all realms of Palestinian society are employed in the ideological struggle against any aspect of Jewish legitimacy, even the moderates. In short, a moderate is interested in negotiating with Israel - perhaps even coming to an agreement on Palestinian statehood in the West Bank - but Israel remains for him absolutely illegitimate (and the conflict essentially is still not over). Unfortunately, however, a new shadow now hangs over our heads. The threats of Iran against Israel have absolutely nothing to do with a two-state or one-state settlement. West Bank settlements or the division of Jerusalem make absolutely no difference to Iran's political thinking. Even if a peace treaty as envisioned by Leonard Fein were to be finalized, the real dangers to Israel will be the same as before. Mainstream Israel wants peace now, and is willing to make any reasonable compromise in order to achieve it; but even if the Palestinians are capable of ending the conflict (which is still not clear), the end of confrontation is nowhere in sight.
The Palestinian struggle is against "Zionism", not against "Israel". Even in the framework of a one-state solution, Zionism will continue to exist...dont delude yourself Yehuda, in a one state solution, the Palestinians will make short work of the Jews, just like Idi Amin did when he expelled Ugandans of Indian descent in 1972-with a one state solution, Hebrew will be the new Ladino and you will be shining shoes in Las Vegas
To Herbert Kaine - There are no delusions, really. I speak Arabic, read the Arabic press, understand their broadcasting, etc. The conflict is not coming to an end. Indeed, it is true that if the Arabic-speaking world would accept our legitimacy, the conflict would come to an end. The final arrangement of borders or material compensations would be worked out. However, that is not going to happen. The illegitimacy of Jewish aspirations is simply self-evident in the Arab world - even amongst those who negotiate with Israel. The negotiations are simply a part of the ongoing struggle, and the Arabic press is quite blunt about it. They will regularly remind their readers of the days of Muhammad who also negotiated with his foes before eventually defeating them. You might find it interesting to read a translation of the Palestinian national anthem, "Biladi". It's quite different than Ha-Tiqva ("the hope to be a free people in our land"). "Biladi" speaks of "a volcano of revenge". I always wonder if a person like Mr Fein has ever read important Palestinian texts. Like many Jewish intellectuals, he is totally focused on the Jewish half of the conflict, as if this half is the whole. He never has any insight regarding the actions and motivation of the other side. In short, it is our duty to seek peace, but at the same time we have to clarify to our public the reality of Jewish history in this era: It could be that the conflict will continue for many generations. Also in the past, Jewish life was under tremendous pressures for centuries - and yet the Jewish public stubbornly continued its unique civilization and creativity.
Yehuda seems to have missed some facts. How do we know that Sari Nusseibeh has been a moderate? Quoting Wikipedia: “Nusseibeh was not politically active during much of the Oslo Peace Process but was appointed as the PLO Representative in Jerusalem in 2001. During this period Nusseibeh began to strongly suggest that Palestinians give up their Right of Return in exchange for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A number of Palestinian organizations have strongly condemned his views on this issue. [Subsequently, he] criticized the militarization of the intifada in January 2002 [and] called for the renunciation of suicide bombings and the establishment of Palestine as a demilitarized state: ‘A Palestinian state should be demilitarized - not because that's what Israel demands, but in our own interest’. [And, he acted.] In 2002 Sari Nusseibeh and former Shin Bet director, Ami Ayalon published the The People's Voice, an Israeli-Palestinian civil initiative that aims to advance the process of achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and a draft peace agreement that called for a Palestinian state based on Israel's 1967 borders and for a compromise on the Palestinian Right of Return. The People's Voice Initiative was officially launched on June 25, 2003.” Ami Ayalon is not so easily confused as Yehuda. Yehuda is correct, in 1982, PA President Abbas did write his “PhD thesis (Moscow University) in which he denied the Holocaust.” But, what has he been doing in the 28 years since? Since Arafat’s death, Abbas has placed his political career and, in fact, his very life on the line, fighting Hamas and advocating that Palestinians end all their violence and pursue a two-state settlement through diplomatic means. The IDF, which is participating in training and arming the PA police and militias, is far more confident about Abbas than is Yehuda. It is correct that most Palestinians don’t want a Jewish state anywhere on formerly Arab land. Similarly, most Israelis don’t want any Arabs anywhere between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. However, there are things that the Palestinians want even less. They don’t want massive unemployment, malnourished children and too few, inadequate and overcrowded schools. They don’t want the destruction of their crops and homes, an inadequate water supply and a polluted environment. They don’t want their fellows held captive by Israel and the targeted assassination of their leaders. So, the things that the Palestinians urgently want to stop happening to Palestinians are nearly exactly the same as the things that we Jews want to stop happening to Israelis. How do we know this about the Palestinians? Just about each month, the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah poll both Israelis and Palestinians. The September poll was conducted between August 25 and September 1, 2008. The Palestinian sample size was 1270 adults interviewed face-to-face in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip in 127 randomly selected locations between August 28 and August 30, 2008. The margin of error is 3%. The Israeli sample includes 611 adult Israelis interviewed by phone in Hebrew, Arabic or Russian between August 25 and September 1, 2008. The margin of error is 4.5%. Those polled were asked, “According to the Saudi plan, Israel will retreat from all territories occupied in 1967 including Gaza the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and a Palestinian state will be established. The refugees problem will be resolved through negotiation in a just and agreed upon manner and in accordance with UN resolution 194. In return, all Arab states will recognize Israel and its right to secure borders, will sign peace treaties with her and establish normal diplomatic relations. Do you agree or disagree to this plan?” Of Israeli respondents: 13% definitely agreed, 24.9% agreed, 22.6% disagreed and 36.6% definitely disagreed. Of Palestinian respondents: 12.4% definitely agreed, 54.9% agreed, 23% disagreed and 6.3% definitely disagreed. And, those polled were asked, “If a peace agreement is reached, and a Palestinian state is established and recognized by Israel, would you support or oppose the efforts to reach full reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinian state?” Summing strongly support responses to support response and strongly oppose responses to oppose responses, 76.4% of Israeli respondents would support and 18.9% would oppose, and 69.8% of Palestinian respondents would support and 30.6% would oppose. The respondents were in the considerable majority pragmatically accepting of the Saudi plan, not that either the Israelis or the Palestinians think it is completely just. The majority of the Israeli respondents would not adopt a school curriculum that recognizes the Palestinian state and gives up the aspiration to get back parts of the "homeland" which are in the Palestinian state. Similarly, the majority of the Palestinian respondents would not adopt a school curriculum in the Palestinian state that recognizes Israel and teaches school children not to demand return of all Palestine to the Palestinians. What would they do to make a two-state peace work? In the majority, they would not establish joint political institutions, but, asked if the would support or oppose creating joint economic institutions and ventures: 65.1% of the Israeli respondents and 70.2% of the Palestinians respondents would support. These facts are the basis for negotiating a two-state peace. These are the reasons that we can hope that most Palestinians and most Israelis will keep the peace. A two-state peace is needed NOW. NOW, before the Halacha is perverted more. NOW, before both parties despair. NOW, before more children go hungry. NOW, before more children are ill educated and turn to gang life. NOW, before more people are killed and maimed.
There is no doubt that Nusseibeh and 'Abbas are moderates. But they are moderates by the standards and culture of their society. The word "moderate" is not an objective term. Indeed, as Joel A. Levitt claims, Nusseibeh came out strongly against the suicide bombings. I'm not basing myself on Wikipedia. I actually read the call to stop the suicide bombings that was published in the Palestinian press (in Al-Quds, published in East Jerusalem). He signed it, and so did many other intellectuals and moderates, including Mrs 'Ashwari. However, this moderation is surely not the moderation of Mr Levitt. The intellectuals demanded to stop the suicide bombings, because "they damage the image of the Palestinian national struggle" - not because they are immoral and indiscriminate acts of violence. So, I'm glad that he's against suicide bombings, but I'm not too impressed by his reasoning. Mr 'Abbas is likewise a moderate. He is willing to negotiate with Israel for a two-state solution. However, he denies the Holocaust, and this fact deserves some attention - surely in the Jewish press. He argued in his Ph.D thesis that the European governments wished to rid themselves of the Jewish population, so they co-operated with the Zionist Movement in spreading panic amongst the Jews. The Jews, fearing for their lives in this "make-believe" Holocaust, invaded Palestine. So, he is a moderate - a moderate who believes that Israel is illegitimate and founded on deceit. A Jewish moderate wishes to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, believing that both sides have legitimate claims and interests. It's a different kind of moderacy, defined by another culture. I don't think that the public opinion polls in Palestinian society are really understood by the non-Arabic public. When a Palestinian hears that "the refugees problem will be resolved through negotiation in a just and agreed upon manner and in accordance with UN resolution 194", he understands only one thing: All the refugees will return to their former homes. The code word that a westerner does not understand is "just" - in Arabic "'adel". A "just solution" always means return. Now, if we were to ask the Palestinian public if it agrees to settling the refugees in the future West-Bank independent state in the framework of a two-state solution, well, that exact majority that said "yes" to a "just solution based on decision 194" would answer "no" (because that would be "unjust"). Yes, most of us want a two-state solution, and we want it now. But it doesn't depend just on us. In the recent contacts between the sides, the Palestinians have raised some new and interesting demands. They insist that Israel declare her responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinian people, and agree to compensations for the sixty years of war. The Palestinian rejection of compromise, their decision to go to war - all this is not an issue. "The Jewish side is guilty" - and this is the basis of negotiation with Israel in the eyes of their moderates. It should be noted that the Palestinians will be willing to continue the present situation - poverty, unemployment, violence - if all their demands are not met. Joel A. Levitt believes that mass unemployment and poverty are the motivation of the Palestinian side to arrive at a deal. Many, many Jews would agree with him. I don't think that it is so. The Palestinians are determined to have "justice", their justice (justice is also not an objective term), and they are willing to pay the price of their determination. Unemployment is a result of the intifada. Intifada was more important than working in Israel. Let's give the Palestinians credit where credit is due: They are a determined foe, willing to pay any price for the continued struggle against their enemy. I'm in favor of the two-state solution, so is most of Israeli society. However, that is the weakness of this solution. Once it became clear that a two-state solution is understood as being an Israeli interest, then Israel's foes began to re-evaluate it. Israel, in the eyes of her foes, has no legitimate interests - and that is the background of the "one-state solution". It provides for the disestablishment of Israel (and her ultimate defeat). The conflict is much more complicated than what the Forward thinks. Lastly, Joel A. Levitt, neither side is despairing. The Palestinians are very determined to continue their struggle under any conditions. And we (the Israeli Jews) have no choice but to continue to fight for our survival. I'd like to remind you that in 1920 there were about 60,000 Jews here. In 1948, there were 600,000. Today, there are close to 6,000,000 Jews in Israel, already the largest Jewish community in the world. The conflict is a tragedy, no doubt. But despair? Absolutely not. Jewish history is a drama of ongoing struggles. (Even American Jewry is in a midst of a drama without even knowing it - but that's a discussion for another occasion).