20 comments

1. I strongly disagree with the reference to the “increasingly discredited idea of a two-state solution.” On the contrary, it has regained new life as the only possible viable option for the foreseeable future (meaning at least the next 30 years).  It had been completely written off openly by Israel with Western allies doing little in response, before Oct 7. Now there are many efforts to breathe new life into the two-state solution.

   In my view, the only possible route to a one-state solution will be after two independent states, Israel and Palestine, have lived peacefully with each other for some time.

   This is not to say that achieving a two-state solution will be easy. But it is already happening as more and more states recognize Palestine and as it becomes a member of more international bodies. We all need to urge Canada to officially recognize Palestine as a necessary step in creating an “irrevocable path” to a two-state solution.

   1. HI Peggy,
      thank you.
      I am very much in favouor of Canada recognizing Palestine as a state. I think that, if it were to happen, it would be a step forward. But it would not be a `solution“. It is too manifestly unfair, and leaves far too many issues unresolved. It also leaves the Zionist idea unchallenged – so lays the basis for ongoing trouble.

      1. Dear Peter. I agree with Peggy about the phrase, “increasingly discredited idea of a two-state solution.” By whom and since when? There has been more promotion of two states since October 7 (by the PA, the US, the UN, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others) than in the decade before. On the other hand, I read and watch numerous news sources and commentaries every day, and discussion of any other solution has virtually disappeared. Am I right that OFIP no longer even suggests a “solution,” but only undermines other possibilities as insufficient?

         In your response to Peggy, you write, the two-state solution “also leaves the Zionist idea unchallenged – so lays the basis for ongoing trouble.” Ongoing trouble in the Middle East? Hard to imagine.

      2. Arthur,

         Many have paid lip-service to “the two state solution” but because they never specified what that meant, and never gave Israel motive to agree, it functioned as a “chimera” that only served to distract people from the growth of Israeli control. While Israel’s enablers talked about the mythical creature, Israel worked on something real – military control of all of mandate Palestine and more.

         It is not the role of OFIP to promote a solution. It is a forum – a place where people can discuss the reality. Only the residents of Palestine (all of them) can find a solution.

2. Well said Peter. Especially your closing statement. Any just, sustainable solution for a peace is going to have to address the root cause of all the horrors that have taken place in historic Palestine in the last century or so, and that is the political ideology of Zionism. As long as Israelis feel they are inherently “better” than Palestinians because of their ethnicity, they will never consent to treating them equally, whether in agreeing to a truly sovereign Palestinian state or to removing all forms of systemic discrimination within Israel. Zionism has got to go.

3. I believe that it is meaningless to talk about a “two-state solution” without a clear definition of “state”. Some supporters of that approach add that the Palestinian state would not be armed. Few, if any, are clear about the borders and who controls those borders. Few say anything about the rights of minorities in the states that result. It is as if they say that they believe in a “two-buggle solution”.. I do not know what “buggle” means and I know no more about what they mean by “state”.

   “Recognition of a Palestinian State” is equally meaningless without adding any detail about what that means. At most it says that the status quo is wrong.

   I have come to the conclusion that the first step towards any real solution would have to be a “no state solution”. This would recognize that it was a mistake to recognize a state that did not have the support of many of the people affected by the recognition. That act put the two main nations that claim the area in a very unfair situation in which one had close to nothing and the other could veto any change. The state that has recognition, foreign support, and effective control of the whole area, has nothing to gain by compromising. Declaring that there are no recognized states in mandate Palestine, would force all of the nations involved to negotiate on a “level playing field” and agree on a state structure. 

   1. Hello Dr. Parnas,
      Thanks for your contribution. I agree that any solution would have to deal with the original injustice caused to the Palestinians by the creation fo the state of Israel. A first step would be for the UN to rescind resolution 181, which confiscated 55% of Palestine and gave it to incoming European Jewish refugees. Time to recognize that that model was not a good one.

      1. Hi Dr. Larson,

         The “No State Solution requires more than a repeal of resolution 181. It requires undoing all of the things that resulted from that. It would require the closing of embassies and consulates and allowing only the semi-formal representation that Palestinians have now. It would mean not recognizing Israeli passports, giving present holders only the travel possibilities that Palestinians have now. It would mean treating the IDF the same way countries now treat Hamas and not supporting either in any way. The goal would be to give the same status to Israel as Palestine has now and motivate the two groups to agree on a state structure. It would mean conforming to the whole Balfour Declaration not just a distorted version of the first half. 

         By the way, I think Israel and its supporters would react to your, “gave it to incoming European Jewish refugees” by pointing out that many of today’s Israelis are not European or European descendants because there are also Jewish Israelis who immigrated from other parts of the world. They would ignore the dominance of the European Jews.

      2. Hi Dr. Parnas,
         On your last point, I agree. Israel today is not mainly composed of ashkenazi jews. But they were the ones who drove the project (and still dominate it). They later recruited Jews from the Middle east and North Africa.

         In a roughly analogous manner, the creation of Canada was driven mainly by British immigration (some on the rebound from the USA). But then we proceeded to recruit others to our project – poles, russians, ukrainians, italians, etc. They immigrated to Canada, learned English, and became part of the English Canadian settler colonial project. (I am leaving out the Quebec dimension for simplicity.)

4. We recently watched One Life, a good movie about an ordinary hero who organized a rescue for hundreds of children in Prague from the gathering clouds of holocaust in 1938. It’s based on a true story. Thinking about certain parallels between the Nazis behavior then and the Israeli treatment of Gazan civilians now generated many uncomfortable pangs of anguish for me as I watched and contemplated the story. I am not Jewish, but like many Jews I have always hoped that enlightened people everywhere would be guided by the call “Never again”. NEVER AGAIN FOR ANY CIVILIAN POPULATION. If it’s just for Jews the point is lost and the slogan becomes ugly. Zionism seems to be advocating that it’s just for Jews.

5. Hi Peter . Many Western Governments ,including Canada , have as their official policy re Israel/Palestine, support for the two state solution. However these governments have watched continued Israeli annexation and settlement expansion both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last several decades but have only expressed concern . So is the two state solution even possible now?

   1. Hey Stephen, thanks for your question.
      IMHO, there are 2 distinct parts.

      1 Could there be a 2 state deal? (Possibly a combination of sticks and carrots could get the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to sign something.

      2 Would it be a solution? I don’t think so. A two state deal doesn’t come near to dealing with the injustices visited on the Palestinians by virtue of the creation of the state of Israel. It doesn’t deal with the 5 or 6 million Palestinian refugees, for example who were forced out. And it still leaves the Palestinians inside of Israel facing an unequal, racist (Jim Crow type) situation.
      As long as there is inquality, there will be resistance.
      On the Israeli side, a 2SS doesn’t deal with the racism inherent in Zionism. As long as that is not combatted, friction will continue

      1. Peter, even if there were equality, there would be resistance from both sides because each side would believe that it had a right to be on the other side. Extremist Jews would demand all of the area that they think G-d gave them. Palestinians would believe that they had a right to return to their historic family homes.

      2. Hi Peter

         Thanks for your reply . Your points are well taken . However it seems now, as Peggy Mason alluded to in her comment, the drum beat for a two state solution is being heard again, not only among Western governments but others as well.

      3. Stephen,

         Do all the drummers play the same tune? Do they agree on borders? Do they see two equally sovereign states or do they want a new name for what exists now? Do they want to free the Palestinians from the trap they are now in or do they want to just get the Palestinians out of the way of Israel’s continued growth? Do they want justice or surrender? I think I know what the western governments want but do the others want the same thing?

6. Hi, I appreciate Peter bringing these gatherings to our attention. Yesterday I attended the Vancouver event. Reps from NIL, Standing Together, and Mitvim spoke. The crowd was almost all Jewish and seemed distinctly left of centre. Overall, the event was “better” than I expected. The presenters appeared to be very left, one a self-declared Marxist. A few takeaways.

   • Israeli society is fractured, a mess, and there is a real sense of despair. They can’t go back to pre-Oct 7, and they don’t want Oct 7 to ever happen again. the future is scary, as all assumptions collapsed. It is understood that the occupation and Gaza have been “managed” for the past ten years do that Israelis could ignore them, but no longer.
   • Israelis’ priorities are security, security, security.
   • 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians live between the river and the sea. They all have to be equal, or the “conflict” will go on forever.
   • Everything in the region is linked — Iran, Gaza, Hezbollah. the problems cannot be settled in isolation.
   • Israelis are waiting to be led.
   • Many Israelis are grasping that a real peace settlement is the only thing that can prevent many more Oct 7. “A peace of no choice.”

   Afterwards, I buttonholed one of the presenters and commented that it sounded like what they were advocating would require the dismantling / abandoning of key tenets of political Zionist ideology. He politely waffled and refused to engage.

   Definitely and interesting evening, and I came away feeling that they see “one democracy of all it’s citizens” — the Balad platform — as the only way forward. I certainly wished the event had gone on for a few more hours so we could have heard how they see that happening.

   1. Hey Philip, thanks for this detailed “report”.

      i went to the Ottawa event, and my sense was quite different. No “Balad /one democratic state” folks that I could detect. Any “Marxists’ were of the academic type and did not speakup.

      The audience was mixed, but mostly older. There were about 120 people at Ottawa meeting. I ercognized about a dozen people.

      Panel of 4 speakers. Two were excellent (Gisha and Breaking the Silence). The two others were decent liberal zionists worried about Israel’s slide into ethnic/religious extremism. Not the liberal Israel they wanted.

      Based on body language and follow upquestions, I think the audience was discouraged. They didn’t like what they were hearing … about Gaza, about the IDF, about Netanyahu…. (The man from Breaking the Silence was devastating in his critique of “The most moral army in the world’.

      There was not much promotion of 2SS, other than that it is necessary and possible with good leadership.

      Several references to there being 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians/Arabs. The other 5 million Palestinian refugees, all living within 200 km of Jerusalem don’t appear in the calculus.

      I had a few conversations after the event. The folks I talked to are very defensive, but not happy about what they see.

      1. Sounds like a slightly different “flavour” due to different speakers and audience makeup. The event here only lasted 90 minutes, which was barely enough time to scratch the surface on many different issues. Not sure why they flew out here for only 90 minutes.

   2. Just to be sure, Balad supports the two-state solution.

      Balad’s “stated purpose is the ‘struggle to transform the state of Israel into a democracy for all its citizens, irrespective of national or ethnic identity.'”^[28] “It opposes the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, and … advocates that the state of Israel recognize Arabs as a national minority, entitled to all rights that come with that status including autonomy in education, culture and media.” …The party supports the creation of two states based on pre-1967 borders, with the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem to constitute a Palestinian state the return of Palestinian refugees and their families.” (Wikipedia)

      Quite compatible with a liberal Zionist position.

      1. Hey Arthur,
         Thanks for the corrective. Very helpful

Comments are closed.