John Kerry’s challenge to Israel on a two-state solution
|
Version 0 of 1. One state in which a Jewish government rules the entire territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan and controls a Palestinian Arab population that equals the number of Jews is not the only option. There could be a single state of all its citizens, controlled by a democratically elected parliament and government in the interests of all its citizens (Kerry accuses Israel of undermining peace hopes, 29 December). This would not be a bizarre arrangement. In fact, all civilised nations apart from Israel are governed in this way. Your Q&A section says that “This would effectively be the end of the Jewish homeland, and thus unacceptable to the vast majority of global Jews and many others.” First, the “Jewish homeland” was formed by taking the land of another people, the Palestinians. And most Jews today, as shown by their distribution around the world, have no need for a Jewish homeland. There is also no evidence to show that a single democratic state covering Israel, the West Bank and Gaza would be unacceptable. There are many Jews in the US and the UK who recognise that an ethnically defined state is an anachronism in the modern world. They see that a state of and for all its citizens is the only just route to peace. Even in Israel itself, where the grip of Judaism on the apparatus of state control is increasingly resented by many secular Jews, there is a growing one-state movement. The time has come to face the facts. The rightwing racists who run Israel in the face of all principles of democracy that apply in the rest of the world have to be removed by democratic means so that Israel and Palestine can be governed as one state in the way their citizens deserve.Karl SabbaghAuthor, Palestine: A Personal History • The prime minister was absolutely right to criticise John Kerry’s speech on Israel and settlements (Report, 30 December). First, it is legitimate to question why the US secretary of state found it so important to focus his final days in office on Israel’s settlement policy when so much of the world is in flames, so much of the Middle East is in ruins, and when much of that is a direct result of President Obama’s and Kerry’s failures in office. This selectivity in itself invites criticism on the grounds of a lack of even-handedness. Second, while one may disagree with Israel’s settlement policy (as many in Israel do), to suggest that settlements are the obstacle to peace is plainly wrong. Israel had to fight three wars for survival (1948, 1956 and 1967), long before there was an occupation or settlements. In 1967, Israel’s offer to return the territories, in exchange for peace – an offer embedded into UN resolution 242 – was rejected by the Palestinians and Arabs. In 2000, Israel made generous offers to create a Palestinian state, but this too was rejected, and when Israel implemented a unilateral and complete withdrawal from Gaza (2005), all it got in return was a barrage of rockets. The real impediment to peace and to the two-state solution is that the Palestinians (and many Arabs) refuse to concede Israel’s right to exist. They do not dream of a state alongside Israel, but one in place of Israel. The issues are existential, not territorial. Had it been otherwise, the problem would long have been solved, just as it was when Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979. Joshua RoweManchester • Reacting to John Kerry’s assessment that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is the “most rightwing coalition in Israeli history”, Theresa May’s spokesman said she “thought it was not appropriate to focus … solely on the issue of Israeli settlements” and continued: “The government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.” The fly in that ointment is that the present creeping annexation of Palestinian territory, while never-ending “negotiations” continue, suits the Netanyahu government. Without external pressure, such as trade and cultural sanctions on Israel, there is nothing to prevent the latticework that is Palestine from being eaten away to the point where it is as no longer viable as a state.Eddie DougallBury St Edmunds, Suffolk • In the international angst over Israel it is surely worth remembering those acts of generosity to beleaguered Jews shown by the international community: the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which “favoured the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, followed by its implementation through the state of Israel in 1948. To this neutral observer things started to go wrong only when Israel decided in 1967 that it would no longer accept the borders provided for it 19 years earlier. That seems to have been the key action from which the whole tragedy has ensued. Somehow we need to find a way back to first principles on this matter.Robin WendtChester • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |