Israel and Palestine...A Two-State Solution

[David Kean]

It is a commonly held belief that even if a 2-State solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict were to come to fruition, the possibility of future attacks on Israel by Arab/Muslim extremists would likely continue. What course(s) of action by both the Israelis and Palestinians would Beyond War recommend as possible solution in order to prevent both sides of the conflict from returning to the current status quo?

[Noah]

It would be great if we could start with "Compassionate Listening" like in the article "Hope Within The Fire". The idea of the creation of a Peacemakers Camp would be ideal - but would it be enough? A Peacemakers Camp may plant the seeds of peaceful change, and hopefully they would grow to understand one another, rather than kill each other.

[William L Hallmark]

Your question has caused me to revisit this long-time problem and attempt to re-think my answer. You will see that instead of coming up with a proposed recommendation as you request, I have simply set out the reality as I see it. My answer is that ultimately the parties to this conflict will not have peace and security until they mutually decide to abandon violence in favor of working together to reach mutually agreeable solutions. The paragraphs below attempt to explain that conclusion.

The two state solution is a proposed outcome which invites the parties to assume an end point (two independent states) and then begin working out the terms and conditions that need to be negotiated to reach that end point. Your question addresses a critical issue -- how can Israel assure its own security as part of this solution. The usual answer is to pose some sort of control over the West Bank and Gaza that would enable Israel to control the situation. Or, as has recently occurred, leave Gaza without any agreement, but reserve the right to use all means to eliminate attacks including all out invasion. Answers of this nature inevitably perpetuate the war mentality that has driven this conflict for many lifetimes.

Beyond War advocates a cultural shift which begins by renouncing the use of force as a means of resolving conflict. So, we would propose that the parties begin addressing how to arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome that relies upon mutual consent rather than force. To make such a shift, the parties would have to recognize that "we are one." That is Israeli and Palestinian, Arab and Jew would need to begin working together as partners to solve their mutual problem. Indeed, as is currently being suggested, not just Palestinian Arabs, but everyone in the Middle East must begin to think this way to bring peace to this area of the world.

Interestingly, many Jews and Arabs are working together to bring about this change. But they are a small minority and their governments are not willing to adopt their approach. To some extent, the governments must be the last to change. As is suggested in Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun, parties to a conflict cannot work together until a zone of safety is created. Each government is charged with creating that zone of safety for its citizens. So, just as we expect the police to be sure unlawful elements do not threaten us in our neighborhoods, citizens expect their national government to protect them from outside attack.

But this conflict has demonstrated over and over that violence begets violence. The outcome is that no one is secure. The governments involved have a choice: (a) continue the old pattern or (b) seek alternative approaches. If the old pattern is continued these governments should expect the same outcomes that have been occurring for generations -- continued violence and insecurity. The alternative approach is to say "OK, violence is not working. We cannot create a zone of safety through the use of violence. We must find another way while at the same time maintaining our security to the extent we can. And we cannot find another way alone, but only with the help of the Third Side and of our enemy."

To date the warring governments have not been able to take that step. They continue to believe that they can succeed in achieving security without developing a positive relationship with their enemies. I personally do not believe it is possible to achieve security in this way -- I believe security can be achieved only when enemies treat each other with mutual respect and develop relationships that are built upon working as partners to solve problems.

The world has actually run the experiments that demonstrate this truth. E.g. the European Union is made up of former enemies who fought with each other for many centuries. Having renounced this approach and having chosen to work together to solve problems, the EU now prospers and no longer considers the use of violence as a way to resolve conflict among its members. Notice this outcome was possible only after all participants decided violence was not the way to go. Likewise, all parties in the Middle East must come to this conclusion before anyone can enjoy security.

[Libby and Len Traubman]

This is old language.

Two (or three or four) states are not a solution. RELATIONSHIPS - on going listening and face-to-face communicaiton in vastly greater numbers - are the beginning of a sustainable solution.

People "want" peace but don't pursue relationships. It cannot be.

See VISUALS in Hebrew and Arabic describing the Process of Change - http://traubman.igc.org/changechartsme.pdf - the foundation of which must be authentic, perpetural human relationships -- thousands and thousands.

LANGUAGE also matters. From now on, let's call this the Israeli-Palestinian Relationship and not condemn it to a "conflict." We have conflicts every day and we also have our successes, but very few people refer to us as the "Libby-Len Conflict."

Libby and Len Traubman
[e-mail]

[David Kean]

You are correct in stating that language matters. I would also like to mention that I am in complete agreement with the spirit of your response. But there are a couple of important points that I'd like to make in response to your posting.

The first point would be that conflict in and of itself is not only normal, but it is also healthy. It is how we choose to deal with conflict which is of vital importance. The Israelis and Palestinians have always had a relationship, but unfortunately it has been an unhealthy and unproductive one. Occupation, suicide bombings, excessive police force, etc. are not healthy choices for resolving conflicts. Both sides are trapped in a self-fulfilling cycle and prophecy of violence.

This relationship is extraordinarily strained and is dire need of courageous and responsible leadership on both sides. I can't help but think of previous leaders such as Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and Jimmy Carter when I look to prior examples of such courage. I also remember the responsible methods which both sides have used in order to reinvigorate the peace process and movement towards reconciliation. The 1st Intifada was primarily non-violent and was meant to show the Israelis that the Palestinians were there to stay and that they are contributors to the Israeli way of life and must be respected. I also look to the unilateral decision of the Israelis to remove their forces from the Gaza Strip as a sign that they respect Arab/Palestinian sovereignty.

When you take those examples into consideration, along with the Camp David and Oslo Accords, one can't help but have their faith restored a little bit. Both parties demand and deserve their own sovereign states, which would be free of the fear of attack by the other side. This is where the focus of relationship building will be most important as the Israelis and all other Arab/Muslim nations will need to show respect for everyone's rights and dignity.

Let me be clear on this final point. I have the utmost faith of the citizens on both sides of this dispute to respect and recognize the existence of both nations (when the Palestinian state is finally created). It is the leadership and extremists on both sides that worry me the most. In the 30 years since the Israeli/Egyptian peace agreement, there have been examples of will, courage, and determination on both sides, yet we still have no lasting and viable peace in the region. Again, I blame the leaders and violent elements of both societies for the failure to make peace a reality. But I would still encourage them to do what is right for their people and not their political purposes or destabilizing violent ends.