Prior to President Barack Obama’s trip to Israel, he, Secretary of State John Kerry and others reiterated their commitment to a “two-state solution.” We strongly oppose the use of this term – and not for political reasons.
One should stop using this term even if one believes that establishing a Palestinian state is necessary to secure a final resolution and peace. The phrase should be dropped as a major misnomer, because it is inaccurate and false.
This term “two-state solution” falsely implies – even claims – that Israel is not yet a state, that it is not a sovereign, independent, UN-sanctioned state until and unless a Palestinian state comes into being alongside it. If this were not the implication, why would anyone be promoting the term “two-state solution”?
It also falsely implies that both sides are getting the same thing. Yet Israel is already a state and its legitimacy stands independent of whatever political solution might one day emerge.
Before 1948, the year the Israeli state was established, one could reasonably and accurately speak of a two-state solution, because that is what was being proposed – a state for Jews and a 23rd state for Arabs. Today, only a Palestinian state is being proposed and those advocating it should therefore call it the “Palestinian state solution.” But this too is fraught with problems, inasmuch as a Palestinian state under prevailing conditions would not bring peace and therefore provides no “solution.”
Read the entire article, it's excellent and bang on.
No comments:
Post a Comment