The present military action in the Gaza Strip has forced me to spend some time evaluating my position and as a result I no longer consider one of those ideas to be a viable possibility.

Not A Solution

The “Two State Solution” is not a solution at all. 

If we as a global society would welcome an endless war then we may continue to advocate this idea, but otherwise, I tell you it will solve nothing.  Even if Israel were to hand over enough land for the Palestinians to have a contiguous territory (an essential condition for my version of the “two state solution” and a condition which Israel does not seem likely to meet voluntarily) there would follow the inevitable border disputes and skirmishes, with lulls and escalations and basically a low-level war for the next several hundred years.

This is unacceptable, and not just from a humanitarian standpoint.  It is also a question of global security:  Until there is peace in Israel-Palestine, there will not be peace in the rest of the world.  Consider that Islamic militant groups around the world cite the conditions in Palestine as one of their chief justifications for whatever atrocity they care to commit.  Such groups will always cite something: but the rallying cry of “Liberate Palestine!” has proved extremely effective and, together with the American-led invasion of Iraq, has certainly aided the process of recruiting large numbers of individuals into extremist militant networks around the world.

The present military operation in Gaza has certainly polarized global sentiment.  Initially, my thought was that some action against Hamas by Israel was justifiable, as was an increased troop presence near the border; both could be explained as deterrents against future rocket attacks.  But I felt my stomach churn when Israel then mounted a ground incursion, with the predictable result that civilian casualties, and the proportion of civilian casualties to the total casualties, have increased significantly.  The ground invasion was a mistake, both in terms of effectiveness as a security strategy and in humanitarian terms.  At this writing the number of civilian casualties has nearly tripled since before ground troops went into Gaza, yet  Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians have not been deterred by the incursion of troops and tanks.

Not by Force of Arms

The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians will not be resolved by force of arms.  The tit for tat string of retaliations back and forth could carry on endlessly for generations and nothing would be settled.  There must be an international diplomatic solution.

Israel cannot permanently win this conflict through strength.  It is clear that Israel’s military superiority will never win over the hearts and minds of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians cannot win this conflict militarily either.  In fact, it appears that Hamas has no intention of winning this conflict.  Their strategy is to win by losing.  Whether with rockets or suicide bombers, Hamas will keep harassing Israel like a child poking a badger with a stick.  Israel in response will continue to sequester the Palestinian people in their economically deprived slums and occasionally barrage them with retaliatory missile strikes of their own. The Palestinian people, who are on the whole entirely powerless in this situation, consequently feel victimized by the Israelis, so they will teach their children to grow up and hate the Israelis, and as a result of their hatred for Israel, they will support those who fight against Israel, namely Hamas.  Hamas is playing for long-term support and is apparently succeeding.  I will be very surprised if they do not now dominate Gaza politics for generations to come.   It is an endless cycle of violence which empowers a few rogue militant leaders at the expense of world peace.

I do not believe that the Israelis wants to fight an endless war; but they will, if they have no choice.  I do not support all of the Israeli government’s goals and I certainly disagree with many of its actions.  However I believe that the people of Israel would support a peaceful solution, if one could be arranged.

The United Territories of Israel-Palestine

Never has Federalism seemed more appropriate than in the case of Israel-Palestine.

Those who have read the book may recall that I argue against the application of the ideas of Federalism to the development of a future united world government.   Instead I propose a system of global direct democracy.

However, in the specific instance of a hypothetical future Constitutional government of the United Territories of Israel-Palestine (UTIF), a bicameral legislature and a lengthy Bill of Rights would go a long way to secure the future of world peace.  A Senate or upper house with a permanent or very slowly changing apportionment would be able to veto legislation passed by the more representative lower house, thereby assuring that even if Muslims end up outnumbering Jews, the Jewish people would not suffer legislative retaliation at the hands of the newly enfranchised Palestinians.

A Unified, Secular, Constitutional State

I support Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.  However, I do not support Israel’s right to a specifically Jewish government any more than I support the concept of a religious Caliphate elsewhere in the Middle East, as many proponents of pan-Arab nationalism presently advocate.

Those who have read the book will no doubt vividly recall my strenuous objections to the undue influence which religious groups presently have on the American government.

In order to be provide their citizens with true equality, governments must be secular, neither supporting nor prohibiting any one specific group.

A successful unified state in Israel-Palestine would have to adopt a new Constitution that guaranteed absolute equality for all its citizens through both the government’s structure and also a lengthy Bill of Rights. This is the one and only path to a lasting peace.

The Role of the World

The United Nations has proved singularly ineffective in its attempts to resolve the conflict in Israel-Palestine.  My positions regarding the reform of that world body have been made known, but those are very long-term goals.

It is possible, though hardly desirable, that some form of “world government” may eventually end up being required to step in and impose a truce.  I don’t need to go into detail here about the concept of a global police whose mission is to prevent conflict without supporting one side or another; that has been mentioned in the book and elsewhere on this blog.  Far preferable would be a solution worked out between the people of Palestine and the people of Israel.  In the absence of such a solution, the world must impose one, because surely all reasonable people agree that an endless conflict is simply unacceptable.

In the near term, our priority must be to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to talk to each other, to negotiate, to fight with ideas instead of bullets and explosives.   As Americans, we could have a lot of leverage with the government of Israel, should we choose to use it.  We support them with money and armaments.  We should make our continued support conditional upon their accepting of certain positions and taking certain actions.

Peace in the Middle East will not be easy, but it is possible, and it is essential for the peace of the rest of the world.