When arguments appear in their official guise

One never wants to judge motives. But again and again we encounter individuals whose vehement opposition to the idea of a two-state solution stems from an ideology and not from pragmatic considerations. Yet, those very people when called upon to defend their hostility to the notion of two states will often defend it publicly in terms of security as if that were the only motive when in fact it is not.

The security argument is a weak one. The Palestinians have never had real autonomy and therefore it’s simply extrapolating to say whenever they have a state it goes violent. Of course one could cite Gaza which in 2005 was given autonomy to a large extent and its residents elected Hamas and entrusted themselves to a terrorist organization. So that hardly bodes well for Palestinian autonomy of any kind.

However, there are other Palestinians who are not Hamas. It doesn’t help to buy into the propaganda of certain politicians who would like to tar all Palestinians with the brush of terrorism. Many of them have suffered at the hands of extremists.

For a long time I have proposed, as a first step, the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank, beginning with those which are illegal and which are against Israeli law. Such a concrete gesture sends the message that if at some point down the road Palestinians renounce terror and prove their desire to live and let live, then here is a stretch of land that is waiting. A watchful Israel always has the option to step in – and step in with big guns if things get out of control.

In 1991, on returning from Israel after the first Gulf War, I was asked by a congregation to give a first-hand account of what it was like during those six weeks. After reporting, I commented on what I thought was the best long-term solution – namely two states. The audience reacted with various iterations of ‘We don’t want terrorists on our doorstep’. My response: there will always be Arabs on the border wherever you draw the line. The question is can those neighbors be less antagonistic, and might not statehood keep them busy doing what other people do when they have a state. Surely that is what the majority of any population wants. The minority who care nothing for statehood but are hell bent on Israel’s elimination they will then stick out like a sore thumb. And if it doesn’t turn out that way and the majority are not really interested in statehood and only in destroying Israel, then Israel knows what to do.

The room went silent.

In the lobby somebody came over and remarked: ‘that glum reaction was predictable to me because I know this community. Rabin is not allowed to cross the threshold, Kahane was always embraced’. So although security had been raised by way of objection to a two state proposal, underlying the objection was ideology. This little incident is typical of encounters where security serves as window dressing but isn’t necessarily the primary motivation.