2-state solution in sight

Though the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spurs a furious debate — especially on Princeton’s campus — most “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian” activists actually want the same thing: security and sovereignty for Israel, and an independent state of Palestine within the borders created by the Six Day War of 1967, an area that includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. This framework is referred to as the “two-state solution” — two states, Israeli and Palestinian, side by side in peace. But after almost 20 years of negotiations, the Palestinian state remains an elusive dream. Fortunately, that dream could become a reality in just a few weeks.

On Sept. 23, the government of the occupied Palestinian territory will formally apply for United Nations membership — internationally recognized statehood, a cause for celebration. Of the 190 U.N.-member states, 126 have already recognized the state of Palestine, and even the most right-wing supporters of Israel admit the eventual inevitability of a Palestinian state. The U.N. vote, however, has created quite a controversy, and the naysayers have been vocal.

Conservative Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserts that the Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood will undermine the peace process, the series of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians that began in 1991. Along with some other members of the so-called “pro-Israel” camp, Netanyahu insists that peace will only come about with a return to negotiations. But the notion that this vote is a setback for peace is misguided. Simply put, Netanyahu’s vision of peace is one in which Israel is allowed to keep — and expand — its illegal settlements in the West Bank.

The population of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has more than doubled since the first peace accords were signed in 1993, changing the demography of the West Bank so that Israel will keep as much land as possible in final status negotiations. In 1998, then-Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon revealed the sentiment candidly: “Everyone ... should move, should run, should grab more hills, expand the territory. Everything that’s grabbed will be in our hands. Everything we don’t grab will be in their hands.” Netanyahu’s phrasing might be a bit more diplomatic, but his mission is the same: to give up as little land as possible. Continued negotiations allow the Israelis to expand settlements and change the demographics on the ground.

And as the demographics change, the two-state solution is pushed further out of reach. The extensive network of Israeli settlements deep into the West Bank is turning Palestine into a patchwork of ghettos rather than a viable state. Add to this the Israeli-only roads, the unequal water access and the separation barrier chopping up Palestinian territory, and it becomes clear that the two-state solution is quickly slipping away.

While the continual loss of Palestinian land is condemnable, the situation is actually more severe for Israel than the Palestinians. Right-wing Zionists have always dreamed of a “Greater Israel,” a Jewish state that would include Israel proper as well as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip; as settlement growth engulfs the West Bank, they might just get their wish. The only problem with such a scenario is that the “Jewish state” would actually have a Jewish minority and an Arab-Palestinian majority. The truth is undeniable: Israel will become a racist, apartheid state. That’s not the talk of some radical activist — that’s exactly what Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said last year on the urgency for the two-state solution. It’s time to speed things along, and U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state could do just that.

The U.S. has already promised that it will veto the Security Council resolution to recognize the Palestinian state; some members of Congress have gone so far as to propose slashing funds from any U.N. entities that support the vote. The Obama administration — not to mention the U.S. Congress — remains under the spell of the conservative Israeli government and its allies in Washington. If a Security Council vote fails, the Palestinians will take their case to the General Assembly, where they will likely be granted “observer status” by the necessary two-thirds majority. Practically, observer status would allow the Palestinian government to push for International Criminal Court investigations of Israeli transgressions in the occupied territories; perhaps more importantly, it sends a symbolic message in support of Palestinian independence to the obstructionists of peace and justice.

It’s hard to tell the long-term impact of this symbolism, but it certainly shouldn’t be written off completely. Advocacy for the Palestinian cause sometimes seems pointless in a country where our politicians and pundits can barely utter the word “Palestine.” But in just a few days, the rest of the world will do far more than that. They will write it, sign it, and celebrate it: Palestine, a global affirmation of support for a people that has been oppressed for far too long. Here’s hoping our government one day joins in.