The Two State Solution?

Why pass this resolution now or at all?

By Ted Belman

I was shocked to receive a note from Dr Paul Eidelberg advising that The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) had endorsed for the first time a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The umbrella organization representing 14 national Jewish groups and 125 local Jewish community relations councils, resolved that

“the organized American Jewish community should affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states — the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine– living side-by-side in peace and security.”

The JCPA includes, inter alia, the Orthodox Union (OU) and the American Jewish Congress. I wrote to all members of the Coordinating Council for Jerusalem, an umbrella organization dedicated to preserving Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.,

By endorsing this resolution is the OU and the others saying they support a two-state solution regardless if it necessitates the division of Jerusalem? Or do they mean they are only endorsing it if Jerusalem remains undivided? Unfortunately the resolution implies the former.

Furthermore, how can one support a solution that is unachievable?

If the resolution is nothing more than wishful thinking or a platitude, why bother?

What motivated the need to support this resolution now?

Who is behind this effort?

To my mind this resolution is very detrimental as it makes it harder for alternates to be forwarded.

Within minutes I was advised by Nathan Diament, the OU Director of the Institute for Public Affairs, of the following CLARIFICATION: OU POSITION AND ROLE ON JCPA RESOLUTION

The Orthodox Union is a member agency of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) and participated in its annual conference this week.

As reported in the media, the JCPA debated and adopted a resolution with regard to the Israeli - Palestinian peace process. The media report, however, did not fully and accurately present the Orthodox Union’s position and activities with regard to the resolution; we do so here.

The OU delegation engaged in the debate over this resolution by proposing and/or opposing provisions of or amendments to the resolution text. The following were the actions of the OU on this matter:

The OU attempted to remove the resolution’s text which would have, for the first time, put JCPA on record in support of the “two state solution” - but we were defeated by a vote of the delegates to the JCPA.

The OU succeeded in inserting into the resolution’s text the statement that “Israel’s repeated offers to establish ‘two democratic states living side by side in peace and security’ have been met, time after time, by violence, incitement and terror.”

The OU attempted to remove the resolution’s text calling for American Jewish support for any negotiations by the Israeli government over the re-division of Jerusalem - but we were defeated by a vote of the delegates to the JCPA.

The OU succeeded in inserting into the resolution text which calls upon the American Jewish community to support Israel’s insistence upon being recognized by the Palestinian Authority as a “Jewish state.”

The OU succeeded in defeating a proposed amendment to the resolution text which would have stated that the American Jewish community views the establishment or expansion of Israeli settlements as an “impediment to peace.”

At the conclusion of the debate and amendment process, the OU delegation abstained from the vote on final passage of the resolution and informed the JCPA of our intention to file a formal, written dissent from the portions of the resolution with which the OU disagrees.

I was satisfied with this position. I then send the same note to key officials with the American Jewish Congress and David Twersky, its Director of International Affairs, wrote back within minutes with its position. He then asked me not to use his statement because he wanted to amend it and I asked him to call which he did.

I advised the OU and everyone on the CCJ of our conversation,

David’s position and that of the American Jewish Congress is that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal that we will be confronted by demands for a bi-national state. So in effect they support Olmer/Livni/Rice/Bush approach. So does the JCPA. The only issue is whether the US should impose a solution of leave it to the parties to dance around.

He believes that the two-state solution is the least worst of all “solutions”.

I am not satisfied that all the alternatives have been fully considered.

Perhaps the status quo is the best option at the moment. I also recognize that there is no such thing as a status quo. It is always changing. It is imperative that Israel channel that change in ways that st5rengthen its claims rather than weaken it claims. At the moment it is trying to enable facts on the ground in Jerusalem which will facilitate dividing it rather than keeping it al.

I suggest that we should hold some king of conference to fully air the status quo and all options.

In my conversation with David Twersky we had a major disagreement. He was adamant that the Saudi Plan offer a peace agreement and I was equally adamant that it only offered the possibility of normalization after Israel withdrew to the ‘49 Armistice Lines.

Ami Isseroff suggested I look at the The Arab Peace Initiative in which the Arab League,

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

A quick reading would suggest that Twersky is right but do not be taken in.

The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin entitled Syria and the Saudi Peace Initiative in 2002 discussed the amendments to the Saudi plan as a result of Syrian protestations.

The Summit Resolution

The Arab League summit transformed Abdullah’s simple declaration of principles into a more convoluted resolution that is less likely to achieve a breakthrough with Israel. Although Syrian efforts to replace the term “full normalization” with “complete peace” were unsuccessful, they were able to reduce it to the watered-down phrase “normal relations” (alaqat tab’iyya), which carries a very different connotation in Arabic - meaning the establishment of relations that are not unusual, rather than a process of improving political, economic, and cultural ties.

A far more critical amendment to the Saudi proposal concerns the status of Palestinian refugees from within Israel’s pre-1967 borders. The resolution added the demand for a “just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194″ and, at the insistence of Syrian and Lebanese delegates, a phrase affirming “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.”

The reason for this added amendment was that Resolution 194 refers to compensation for refugees “choosing not to return,” implying that they should be given a choice. The phrase “special circumstances” refers to the Lebanese constitution, which bans the patriation of refugees. Thus, with respect to the 350,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, the Arab League resolution calls not for their “right of return” (as the Palestinian delegation lobbied for), but mandates that they must be settled in Israel.

I never understood what para 4 (Palestinian patriation) ’til now.

Totally aside from the fact that there is no way Israel will accept these terms for any number of reasons, which means there will be no “normal relations” or peace agreement in the offing, there is no recognition here of Israel as a Jewish State.

In this regard, the PA has been adamant that it will not relent in its demand for the right of return and will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Nor will it relent on its demand for East Jerusalem to be its capital.

Since it provides for the return also of the Golan, Syria effectively has been given a veto.

This is not news to the people involved in negotiations as can be seen in my article “Annapolis” is a separation process, not a peace process.

That being the case, how do we understand yesterday’s resolution,

“the organized American Jewish community should affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states — the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine– living side-by-side in peace and security.”

We don’t. It is an affirmation of the goal of the Roadmap with the word “contiguous” left out consciously or otherwise, and it is silent on Jerusalem and the right of return. It seems to me that there was no need for such a statement but my guess is the Government of Israel wanted it to counter the Arab threat to withdraw their initiative or to undermine the position of the CCJ and the Israeli public which is demanding no division of Jerusalem. In effect, it gives approval for the continuation of negotiations for a two state solution knowing that there is no deal other than the Saudi Plan which is just a mirage as I have pointed out. To my mind, to support the two-state solution is to support the Saudi Plan, because there is no other way it will come into being.

James Woolsey Jr, former Director of the CIA recently spoke in Toronto and said “Two-state Solution out of reach”. Read the article because he had other important things to say on the Middle East.

From my point of view, the JCPA should have sided with the people and not with the Government or should have stayed on the sidelines.

I suspect that this resolution was initiated by Olmert who created the controversy over whether Jews in the Diaspora had a right to a say on Jerusalem. He has in effect co-opted them to be supportive of the peace process.