(This is an opinion piece that is authored by me and my wife, Rabbi Bonnie Margulis, that appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal on Thursday, November 29, 2007.)
In this month of November, the world will observe the 60th anniversary of the 1947 declaration of the United Nations’ Partition Plan for Palestine. This proposal originally called for the establishment of two new countries, both a Jewish and a Palestinian nation.
Accepted by the emerging Israeli government, this plan was rejected by the Arab League states and Palestinian Arab institutions, who simultaneously promised to push Israel into the Mediterranean if it ever declared independence. In fact, in December of that year, Arab military forces began to infiltrate into Palestine to prepare for the inevitable confrontation, thus setting the stage for the next 60 years of unrest and violence.
This month will also see a new chance for peace, as negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians will begin yet again. Convened in Annapolis, MD, by the United States, representatives of Israel, Palestine, and now other Arab governments of the Persian Gulf will begin to debate how to achieve peace in the region, providing the best opportunity for success that we have seen in a long time.
The Annapolis conference represents a chance at new beginnings, despite failed attempts in the past. And for these negotiations to form a basis for a future peace agreement, they require our vigorous support. This is especially so in the face of the radical pessimists and the reactionary naysayers whose only contribution to the debate has been to criticize every compromise solution brought forward.
There are, indeed, many difficult challenges that the negotiators will confront, including threats by Iran and the weakened political position of Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert. But these challenges must not hinder the efforts of any of these assembled leaders to find compromises that will lead to peace:
A two-state compromise would finally force Israeli West Bank settlers to give up on their territorial claims, and would call on Palestinians to end their hope for acquiring land inside Israel.
A two-state compromise would require from Palestinians the recognition that those refugees from the 1948 war choosing to return will largely do so to a new Palestinian state rather than to what is now Israel. There will be a concomitant Israeli recognition that a right to settle in the West Bank will, in actuality, be either in a Palestinian state or as part of a negotiated West Bank land swap.
A two-state compromise would require complex formulae to both divide and share the city of Jerusalem, as the capital of two states, and as the home of religious shrines for many faiths.
A two-state compromise would require recognition from both sides that they must share and preserve natural resources.
And most importantly, a two-state compromise would require a complete disavowal of violence and destruction as ways to find justice for past, present and future grievances.
Yes, a two-state solution would mean a complex and unprecedented set of compromises, yet public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians are in favor of this outcome.
The coming conference in Annapolis should not be viewed as a panacea or an easy fix. On the contrary, nothing could be more complicated at this delicate time.Yet there is much room for optimism as the negotiators head toward Annapolis. If that process has integrity, and if the nations represented negotiate with seriousness, this conference will mark a good beginning and the peace process can be launched anew. The world will not know the results until the weeks ahead have passed. But, possibly, the dream that emerged out of that historic UN vote in 1947 may soon be realized, and peace between the Palestinians and Israelis may be on the horizon.
