OpEd: Everyone Would Gain from a Two-State Solution

By Arkady Mamaysky

Arkady Mamaysky

TARRYTOWN, New York — It takes two to tango but might take more than two to negotiate successfully.

73 years have passed and many direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians took place but still there is no solution to Israeli/Palestinian Arabs’ abnormal situation.

At some other successful negotiations more than two parties were involved.

For example, involvement of our great USA contributed to Israeli peace with Egypt and, very recently, with UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco.

Israel/Palestinians peace negotiations, in my truly humble opinion, should be a negotiation about a two-states solution.

Yes there are important voices against the two-state solution, but only two states will satisfy Israelis and Palestinian Arabs’ aspirations.

A one-state solution will mean Israeli Jews would have to share their home with the peoples who hate them and with unfortunate possibility in the future to become a minority in their own state.

For Palestinian Arabs it would mean giving up their desire of having their own independent state.

The status quo is obviously not satisfactory for each of the parties.

Now than six out of twenty two Arab states openly have diplomatic relationships with Israel there is a practical possibility for not only the USA but for some Arab states to take part in Israeli/Palestinian Arab negotiations and encourage both parties to be flexible.

For a small state like Israel it might provide a possibility, if negotiations require a very painful compromise of giving up some land, to buy some other land from an Arab country.

Yes it will most likely be a waste, desert land. But with Jewish talent and hard work Israelis will convert it into useful land.

For the world Jewry a peaceful two-states outcome of negotiations would mean that now after 2,000 years of Jews being exiled and very often persecuted, there would be not only a Jewish state, the place of our pride and refuge, but also finally our small Jewish state could leave in relative peace.

For Palestinian Arabs it would mean a state of their own and enhanced possibility to address the well being of Palestinian people.

If after negotiations they are unsatisfied with the amount of land under their control, perhaps they could  buy a piece of land from another Arab country with financial help from other Arabs and possibly from Israel.

Whether any party will need to buy more  land would depend on the result of negotiations.

For other Arab countries a two-state solution would mean:

-Seeing an end to at least one long lasting conflict in their region.

-Helping their Palestinian Arab brothers and helping their Israeli cousins, yes cousins, a relationship that some Arab countries have begun to recognize.

–Having Israel with its very strong army on their side against common enemies.

-Making some profit by selling a piece of unused wasteland.

For the rest of the world it would mean seeing the end of a long-lasting, dangerous conflict in the Middle East and witnessing some fairness towards the Jewish people.

And if you, dear reader, think that the above is a naive fantasy, let us remember that if somebody would have predicted the establishment of the state of Israel, with a population of 600,000 Jews in 1948, decisively repelling five Arab armies, and subsequently winning other wars, that too would have been considered a naive fantasy.

So let us hope and pray for such negotiations to start and to be successful.

*
Arkady Mamaysky is a mechanical engineer who emigrated directly to the United States from the former Soviet Union in 1979.

2 thoughts on “OpEd: Everyone Would Gain from a Two-State Solution”

  1. There is more than one reason for the failure of the Oslo Accords, but at the basis lies a fundamental difference in how the conflict is viewed.

    To American ears, the meaning of “two states” is unambiguously straightforward. The struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, to them, is a struggle between two indigenous peoples fighting over the same space of land in which they share a history. A fair solution, then, would be one in which Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and alongside it will exist a separate Palestinian State.

    Nevertheless, according to the Palestinians’ view, this is not a conflict between two national movements but a conflict between one national movement (the Palestinian) and a colonial and imperialistic entity (Israel). According to this view, Israel will end like all colonial phenomena — it will perish and disappear. Moreover, according to the Palestinian view, the Jews are not a nation but a religious community, and as such not entitled to national self-determination which is, after all, a universal imperative.

    The Palestinians’ idea of a fair “two state solution” is one completely Arab state in the West Bank and one democratic binational State of Israel that allows the right of return for descendants of Palestinian refugees. It is a “two state solution,” but not the one American Jews would recognize or Israel could survive.

  2. This is a very good article written by Arkady Mamaysky. I agree with his concepts and hope for a just peace for both sides.

    My own idea is as follows: Peace based on a Modified Two-State Solution regarding voting rights for all people. Creation of a bi-national entity known as the United Nations of Jerusalem (UNJ) of a Jewish and Muslim state. A Jewish State of Israel within the pre-1967 borders and the Golan Heights. An Islamic State of Palestine in Gaza and the West Bank. Then a shared entity would be the Eastern Jerusalem old city limits as of 1967 (which includes the Temple Mount) known as Jerusalem, UNJ. So there will be three Jerusalem entities, One in Israel (city west of the pre-1967 border), Palestine (expanded current eastern city limits from the 1967 city limits), and the UNJ (old eastern city).

    Allow the immigration of persecuted Mideast Christians (maybe 100,000 – 200,000) which would be a stabilizing factor among Jews and Muslims. Per the UNJ treaty, every person (Christian, Druze, Muslim, or Jew) residing in Israel, West Bank, Gaza, Golan, and UNJ will vote for Israeli Knesset members who must be Jewish, and will vote for Palestinian Parliament members who must be Muslim. Every person regardless of religion will be considered a dual citizen in the UNJ but will subject to the laws of the sovereign state they reside in. The sovereign Jewish State of Israel will administer laws and security within Israel and the Golan Heights. The sovereign Islamic State of Palestine will administer security and laws within Gaza and West Bank.

    This dual citizen voting arrangement will secure peace among Jews and Muslims and will reduce the aspect of extremist who inflame this conflict from holding power. Jewish voters are not going to place Hamas terrorists in a Palestinian Parliament. Likewise, Muslim voters are not going to place Israeli apartheid supporters in the Knesset.

    The new Palestinian state will follow the Israeli model of government structure and voting for representatives based on a nationwide proportional representation. The shared old city of Eastern Jerusalem known as Jerusalem, UNJ will be ruled by three leaders the Israeli Prime Minister, Palestinian Prime Minister, and the Pope in Rome. Internal security of Jerusalem, UNJ will be composed of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The Islamic State of Palestine will be a demilitarized state with the Jewish State of Israel overseeing the external defense of Israel, Palestine, and UNJ.

    In voting for the Israeli Knesset, Jewish votes in the UNJ will account for 60% of the total votes while non-Jewish votes in the UNJ will account for 40% total votes in determining Jewish leaders in the Israeli Knesset. This will keep the Jewish flavor of the Knesset while being respectful of Muslims, Christians, and Druzes.

    In voting for the Palestinian Parliament, Muslim votes in the UNJ will account for 60% of the total votes while non-Muslim votes in the UNJ will account for 40% total votes in determining Muslim leaders in the Palestinian Parliament. This will keep the Islamic flavor of the Parliament while being respectful of Jews, Druzes, and Christians.

    This voting system will still create an environment where both sides need to respect each other to get votes while reducing the aspect of extremist who inflame this conflict from holding power.

    Example of a party-list proportional representation based on the D’Hondt method of allocating seats.

    We have 50% of Muslims voting for party A in the Palestinian Parliament.
    We have 30% of Non-Muslims (including Jews) voting for party A in the Palestinian Parliament.

    Muslim ————50% x 60% = 30.00
    Non-Muslim——-30% x 40% = 12.00
    Party A Total———————- 42.00

    The 42.00 decimal number for Party A is used in the D’Hondt Method to allocate seats in the Palestinian Parliament along with the decimal numbers from other Palestinian parties. This voting allocation will prevent extremist in both Israeli and Palestinian Governments from holding power and will promote moderates in both governments.

    The plan can be found at blogspot with GOOGLE search: “Mideast Peace Plan Jon Dolen”.

Comments are closed.