A one-state or bi-national solution?

    Some time ago in a mosque I asked a young Palestinian what he thought about the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He immediately dismissed it, stating that he preferred the one-state solution. It is too late for the two-state solution, he explained. When I probed further, he added that many Palestinians agreed with him.
   Although the two-state solution is still the official Palestinian position, an increasing number of Palestinians, especially the younger generation, have rejected this option. Of the many reasons they offer, perhaps the most important is that the growth of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank has reduced the land available for a future Palestinian state to a series of enclaves that will never be viable.
    Historically, the one-state solution was proposed as early as 1917. Even in 1948, when Palestine was partitioned and the modern State of Israel was established, there were even Jewish voices that questioned this decision; they would have preferred a bi-national state. This was the original goal of the PLO as well; only later did the PLO support the two-state solution.
   After 1999, support for bi-nationalism grew among Palestinians. It become the subject of academic debate. A series of articles argued that the two-state solution was unworkable and the settlements in the West Bank had made it impossible. Since then, many conferences have issued declarations favoring the one-state option.
    Support for one-state is apparent even among Israelis. Even though two-thirds of them prefer two states, the rest, divided equally among right- and left-wing voters, favor a single state. Most reject one-state because of the demographic threat posed by the Palestinians who already constitute 20% of the Israeli population. With the return of many Palestinian refugees to an enlarged Israel, Palestinians would soon outnumber Jews. In addition, the birth rate among Palestinians is much higher than among Jewish Israelis. No wonder so many Israelis are opposed.
    The two-state solution as proposed in the Oslo Agreement has not led to peace but only to increased violence. Bi-nationalism, on the other hand, can lead to a lasting peace, even if the road will be a tortuous and difficult one.
   At this point, I should explain that the one-state option and the bi-national solution, although I have used them together, are not identical. There are probably as many variations of each as there are individual proponents. I prefer to see bi-nationalism as a variant of the single state. But some may argue that bi-nationalism is an expression of the two-state solution. That depends on which variant is chosen and what one calls it.
   The Alternative Palestinian Agenda (www.ap-agenda.org) is a well-developed and detailed proposal that envisions two states in a federal union called Palestine-Israel, with Jerusalem as the capital. This city would be a separately administered territory. See two maps below that accompany this proposal.

 

   This proposal is definitely bi-national. For this reason, I would prefer to call it two nations in one state. Let me give one example of this from elsewhere. In Canada, the House of Commons approved a motion in November 2006 to declare the Quebecois as a nation.within Canada.
   I do not want to debate the merits of the APA proposal now. This is a Palestinian proposal, although there was input from other sources. This proposal and these maps are merely illustrative.
   But the merit of the one-state or bi-national solution is that it is based on the de facto situation that exists currently in Palestine. Not only are the territorial enclaves there not contiguous but the sovereignty of the Palestinians is also seriously impaired.
   There are numerous articles available online that advocate or criticize the one-state solution. I will not discuss the arguments presented there now, except to note the wide gulf that exists between the Palestinian and Israeli views on this topic.
   Although I have been a long-time advocate of the two-state solution, I think it is now appropriate to consider other options. The one-state or bi-national solution is certainly worth our consideration. There are many variants, and one day we may see one of them become reality.
   The two-state solution seems to be a zero-sum game. The one-state or bi-national solution may yet become a win-win situation for all concerned. Great sacrifices will be required from both Palestinians and Israelis. But the prize of a lasting and just peace will surely be worth it.
   

Is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a zero-sum game?

     A zero-sum game is one in which a participant's gains results only from another participant's equivalent losses. Dividing a pie is one example. This definition also seems to describe the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
    The land that is claimed by both Palestinians and Israelis is finite. If one party in the end gets more, the other will have to make do with less.
    The same thing will happen with East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians insist is their future capital, but large parts of which are already settled by Israelis. Both parties cannot have that part of the city in its entirety.
   Water, a scarce and diminishing resource in the region, is more easily divided, but it must be shared as well with surrounding countries, such as Jordan and Syria. The scarcity of water may lead to war. Thus it too can be subsumed under the zero-sum category.
  The main issues between the Palestinians and Israelis are refugees, settlements, borders, security, Jerusalem, and water. Each of these issues is still largely perceived by most of the participants in terms of conflict--a zero-sum game, in other words.
   This attitude needs to change if Palestinians and Israelis are ever to live together in peace. As long as both groups regard the problem as a zero-sum game, a sustainable and just peace will be impossible.
    If the two-state solution is to become a reality, what is needed is a willingness to divide the land and everything else on an equitable basis. That will not be easy. A true and lasting peace will require major sacrifices on both sides:
    1. Since the present condition of the Palestinian population in areas occupied or controlled by Israel is untenable, unjust, and dangerous, Israel must change and create conditions to permit Palestinians to thrive in their new state. That seems highly unlikely if the Palestinian territory is divided into umpteen pieces.
    2. Israel’s right to exist must be recognized by all nations, especially the Arab nations, resulting in a country with internationally recognized borders and committed to the pursuit of peace. While not impossible, it may be difficult for all Arab nations to accede to this condition.
    3. Both Palestinians and Israelis must renounce violence and armed conflict and the threat thereof must cease. Unfortunately, there are still too many extremists on both sides for whom violence is second nature. To renounce violence would mean that these groups lose their raison d'etre.
    4. National security must be provided for both Israelis and Palestinians. This will require international guarantees. But such guarantees will not be enough for many Israelis, who will want to defend themselves in order to prevent another Holocaust, while the Palestinians will not be satisfied with a demilitarized state.
    5. The killing of all non-combatants must be stopped. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. Modern urban warfare makes such casualties inevitable.
    6. The Palestinians will need to establish an acceptable National Authority capable of providing good governance. The recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas is a step in this direction, but Israel and the US both remain suspicious of Hamas.

    The two-state solution that both sides officially acknowledge as the only viable option will require major historic compromises:

   1. An end to Israeli territorial claims in West Bank. The building of new settlements must stop and some may have to be dismantled.

   2. An end to Palestinian claims inside Israel. This would mean that the 1967 border, even with some minor adjustments, cannot be the starting point for negotiations. Many Israelis regard that border as indefensible. One can argue in response that no border is defensible today using modern weapons.

   3. The Palestinian recognition that refugees from 1948 war who choose to return would do so largely to a new Palestinian state rather than to what is now Israel. Israel simply cannot accept such a huge influx of Palestinians nor would it be possible to return the property of the refugees after more than sixty years.

   4. The Israeli recognition that fulfillment of the right of refugees to settle in the West Bank would be either to the Palestinian state or to what is now still Israeli territory as part of a negotiated minor land swap. But the Palestinians would find this difficult to accept. They want to retain the right to return to their original land.

   5. A formula to divide and share Jerusalem as the capital of the two states. But the building of numerous Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem make this more difficult with every passing day.

   6. A formula to divide and share resources, especially water. Any agreement would also have to involve some of the surrounding countries. Already there is not enough water for either the Palestinians or the Israelis.

   The question is not whether the two-state solution is theoretically attainable, but whether the Israelis and the Palestinians have the political will to make it happen. This solution may require international involvement and pressure, which will not be well received.

   Another solution, which would be the product of maintaining the status quo, is the binational- or one-state solution. These two do not necessarily mean exactly the same thing. Many Palestinians increasingly favor some form of this. But that is a separate topic which I will examine in a future posting.
   

Does pro-Palestinian mean anti-Israeli?

    Many years ago, while I was in the seminary, one of my profs urged my classmates and I to give the Palestinian cause a fair hearing. He himself was pro-Palestinian, in part because his research required extensive travel in the Arab states surrounding Israel. This travel had sensitized him to the needs of the Palestinians who were refugees in these states. Yet he did not consider himself anti-Israeli. This was wise, because he also worked in Israel. But, more important, he saw merit in both positions.
    His attitude was not popular in a region of the US that was solidly Republican and generally inclined to be pro-Israeli, although most people were not dispensationalists (who are typically pro-Israeli for theological reasons).
   Over the years, I have heeded his advice as I carefully studied the Palestinian-Israeli question. It is a complex issue with a convoluted history. Therefore I will not even attempt to trace the history nor describe this issue.
   Suffice to say, Palestinians and Israelis are two peoples who have long-standing claims to the same land. In the process of distributing that land during the last century, whether by UN resolutions or through war, many injustices have been perpetrated on both sides. Those who claim that their side alone has been an innocent victim, are blind.
     I strongly affirm the two-state solution, but this is becoming increasingly more difficult to achieve. Although a majority of Israelis still support this solution, a hardline faction of the population refuses to cede any of the Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel. On the other side, there are hardliners too among the Palestinians, and not just among Hamas, who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel and are prepared to use violent methods to rid the land of the Israeli presence.
   The extremist on both sides are the first to argue that one cannot be be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli at the same time. "He who is not for me, is against me," is the maxim they might use. But there are others.
   AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), the main Jewish lobby is the US, which held a 10,000 strong convention recently, with both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu as key note speakers, also falls into this category. The US Congress seems to fit this pattern as well.
   So too do other public institutions that want to be perceived as politically correct. For example, two years ago the University of Toronto at the last minute refused a pro-Palestinian group permission to speak on campus. The event was later moved to church. it should be noted that that UofT has been accused of antisemitism in the past. Universities are not always the bastions of academic freedom that they declare themselves to be.
   Some evangelical Christians are also pro-Israeli for theological reasons. This is why they refuse to listen to those who defend the Palestinians, whom they dismiss as terrorists. Thus too, their equation of Muslims and Islamists, and the burning of the Qur'an by pastor Terry Jones.
   Yet, as difficult as it may seem, there is room in my opinion for those who do not want to take sides, but consider themselves as both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. They recognize that there is merit to the arguments adduced by both groups. How to resolve these thorny issues is too much to handle in this posting. In the next one, however, I want to make a proposal that may help, although it too is not in itself a solution.
   What is needed is willingness to listen to both sides. My prof many years ago did so, in part so that he could continue to do his research but also because through his work he had begun to see some merit in the various arguments.
   This is also my conclusion after having researched the Palestinian-Israeli issue for several decades. All of us, even the most ardent advocate for a particular position, must learn to listen to the other side.
   If we don't, then peace in the Middle East will continue to elude the world forever. Then intifada will follow intifada and war will follow war, until finally one side is victorious. But the price will be much more than the world is prepared to pay. Who will we have to sacrifice: the Palestinians or the Israelis? Can we not find room for both in such a way that their respective aspirations and integrity are maintained?
  Truth is not always as simple as many people believe. But that is the topic for another posting.
 

The one- and a half-state?

     Amid all the rhetoric that President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have displayed lately, truth is one of the chief casualties. Both men again professed their faith in the two-state solution, an independent Israel and an independent Palestine living side-by-side, but each of them, in fact, has by their recent statements made such a solution difficult, if not impossible. 

    Let us begin with the Prime Minister. Netanyahu has imposed new additional conditions, chiefly that Palestinians recognize Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. But that goes far beyond the Palestinian agreement in the Oslo Accord of 1993 to accept the existence of the state of Israel. Yet today one in five people in Israel is Arab. Is there any place for Arabs in a Jewish state?

   The Palestinians also agreed in Oslo to give up 78% of the historic land of Palestine, in order to make.peace. But soon they will be "a people without a land," which was the condition of the Jews in 1948. At any rate, the land they have left will be useless to ever constitute a true state.

   To this day, many Israelis are unwilling to recognize Palestinians as a people, because otherwise they would have to give up part of the land that both claim as their traditional homeland. The Israelis justify evicting the Palestinians, since they are not really "a people," but are the debris of history who have no historical title to the land.

  

     As you will see from the above map, the brown areas, which indicate Palestinian territory, have steadily disappeared ever since the formation of the State of Israel in 1948. And every year more territory is lost. At the current rate soon there will be little Palestinian land left. Jewish settlements are eating up Palestinian land at an enormous clip. And many Israelis are unwilling to stop. Even without being able to read the color-coded key, it is readily apparent from the map below, when compared with the one above, how much land is already occupied by Israelis. This map provides more details.

     Turning now to the President. In his speech, Obama made it clear that he supported the 1967 border as the basis of any agreement, with some adjustments. This affirmation did not go over well with Netanyahu, who immediately dismissed Obama as "naive." Obama did try to redeem himself in the same speech by vowing that the US would not support any attempt by the Palestinians to go to the UN in order to be recognized as a state. According to the US, a Palestinian state can only come into existence through the mutual agreement of both Israelis and Palestinians. For some Israelis, that will never happen.

    The Palestinian request to ask the UN for recognition was the same path that Israel took in 1948. So why would the US not support the Palestinian request? The answer is obvious. In fact, according to news reports, Obama during his tour of Europe is asking European leaders not to support that request. In spite of his personal dislike of Netanyahu, Obama may have to exercise the US veto in the Security Council when this matter comes up. Next year is an election year in the US, and Obama needs the Jewish vote, as well as that of Christian Zionists (although he may not get many of the latter).

    The window for a two-state solution is quickly closing. Soon there will not be enough Palestinian land left to form a viable state. A one-state solution is hardly to be preferred, since in that case Palestinians would become second-class citizens in Israel. The other obstacle, widely recognized by Israelis, is demographic. In time Jews would be outnumbered by Palestinians in Israel. The one-state solution is the default position; it will result if nothing else is done very soon.

   Eventually this may end up being called a one- and a half-state. One full state for Israelis, and a half state for Palestinians, who would still be under Israeli military control and have to suffer numerous other indignities. Since that is not a viable long-term solution, the international community must exert pressure on all the parties involved to go back to the negotiating table. If that does not work, then the UN is the only recourse.

    The deadline of September set by the Palestinians is fast approaching. The international community must now urge Obama to be a statesman, in more ways than one, and support the Palestinian request at the UN. If he does not rise above domestic US politics, the Palestinians will never get the state they deserve. 

    That would be a tragedy not only for them but also for the entire world.

         

The Second Great Disappointment

    Harold Camping has finally spoken in public about Judgment Day, May 21. He informed the world that he felt terrible when his prediction about the return of Christ did not come true. He now says that Judgment Day will come on October 21, which was the date he had originally predicted that that the world would end by being consumed in a fireball.
   Camping explained that Saturday was "an invisible judgment day," not the visible day he had predicted. Everything else remains the same," he added. "We've always said May 21 was the day, but we didn't understand altogether the spiritual meaning. May 21 is the day that Christ came and put the world under judgment."
   In 1994, Camping also admitted that he had made a mistake in dating the return of Christ, but then he explained it as a mathematical error. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is a long history of such failed predictions, of which perhaps the most memorable took place in 1844 when the failure of the prophecies about the end of the world caused widespread consternation among the followers of William Miller. This was called "The Great Disappointment." 
    Camping's failed prediction may one day be termed, The Second Great Disappointment. Many of his followers sold all their possessions because of the coming judgment day. Some used the proceeds to pay for the many advertisements announcing this day. That they were disappointed is probably an understatement. 
    Jeff Hopkins, a former television producer from Great River, New York, has bared his feelings: "I've been mocked and scoffed and cursed at and I've been through a lot with this lighted sign on top of my car. I was doing what I've been instructed to do through the Bible, but now I've been stymied. It's like getting slapped in the face."
    Camping himself, it should be added, did not sell his possessions, nor does he plan to do so before October 21. "If it is Judgment Day, why would I give it away?" Nor would his ministry, Family Radio, tell others what to do. "That is between them and God," he added. 
    The overwhelming majority of Christians reject the idea that the exact date of Christ's return can be predicted. Even if we cannot know the date, most of them are agreed that God does provide signs that warn us about what is coming.
   Tim LaHaye, co-author of the bestselling “Left Behind” novels about the end times, calls Camping's prediction “not only bizarre but 100 per cent wrong!” He cites Matthew 24:36: “But about that day or hour no one knows,” except, of course, God. 
   "While it may be in the near future, many signs of our times certainly indicate so, but anyone who thinks they 'know' the day and the hour is flat out wrong," LaHaye makes this comment on his website: leftbehind.com. 
   Although one can commend Camping and his followers for not only warning people through the many millions they spent on advertisements, they also tried to convert them at the last minute so that these people too would be raptured by Christ and taken with him to heaven. Camping estimates that about 200 million people will saved and join Christ on Judgment Day.
   But, one may well ask, in response: why so few people? That is less than 3% of the world population. Is God's love for the world, for which he sacrificed his Son, limited only to such a small handful of believers? Hardly!
    Christ is returning one day, but we don't know when. Nor do we know how many will be saved. But thankfully God does know.  And one day we too will know; until then we can only wait patiently.
          

The Great Disappointment

   Today is May 22, 2011, and Christ did not return yesterday, as predicted by Harold Camping. How he will explain this failure, no one knows at this point, since he has thus far not made any public pronouncements about it.
   This is the second time he has failed to correctly predict the date of the rapture. The first time was in 1994. When Christ did not return on September 6 of that year, he explained that he had made a mistake in his calculations. He had earlier admitted that possibility, but his followers were nevertheless disappointed. Yesterday their disappointment must have been even greater. Some had sold all their belongings to prepare for that momentous event. Millions had been spent on advertisements announcing the event in newspapers all over the world. Imagine how these followers feel today. How will they react?
    All over the world other people have already responded by making fun of Camping and his followers by, for example, holding parties, as well as making countless tweets mocking this failure. While I do not share their schadenfreude,  I do not feel the least bit sorry for Camping and those whom he has misled again. Their great disappointment should not come completely as a surprise. There is historical precedent for this. Let me give one outstanding example.
   "The Great Disappointment" is the term that is still used today to describe the experience of William Miller and his followers who had predicted that Christ would return in 1844. Miller employed various biblical prophecies to calculate the date. Several proposed dates that year, however, did not turn out as predicted. Although Miller himself had not announced a precise date, he did confess his error and assured his followers that he still believed that Christ's return was imminent. One of his followers, Samuel Snow, on the basis of his own calculations, picked a new date, October 22, 1844. This new prophesy spread like wild fire through the Millerite movement.
    When that date passed uneventfully, the Millerites were very disappointed, hence the term, "Great Disappointment." In addition, they experienced widespread criticism, and there were even examples of violence perpetrated against some churches. Do these reactions not sound eerily familiar?
    Historians note that the Millerite movement soon split into three main groups, not counting those followers who returned to their previous denominations. These three groups became different churches, based on their interpretation of the failure of these predictions. The Seventh-Day Advent Church is perhaps the best known of these groups.
   What will happen in the aftermath of May 21, 2011, no one, not even Camping knows. Perhaps his cult will disband, or it might split into various groups, as the Millerites did. Probably many followers will return to their previous churches, as also happened after 1844.
   The damage that Camping and his followers are doing to the wider Christian church is incalculable. Many people today are mocking all Christians for the behavior of this fringe group. That is perhaps the saddest legacy of Camping. He is welcome to make any predictions he wants, but if he causes damage to the rest of those who call themselves Christians, then he will have much to answer for, especially to God. The Christian community should condemn him as well. He has hurt the entire body of Christ. That is unforgivable.
   Camping's followers may go back to their homes greatly disappointed and eventually disperse. No matter what explanations are given and whatever happens as a result, the effects will be with us for a long time. Like the boy who called wolf too often, no one will believe the message about Christ's return. But he will return one day--we just don't know when.
   

Judgment Day, May 21, 2011?

     

   Judgment Day, May 21, 2011, reads a poster that is held up by someone on a photo in my local newspaper. There is also a full-page ad with this title in the same paper. This message appears as well on an RV, bearing California plates (see photo). This, it is claimed, is the day of the rapture, when Jesus will return to rescue all who believe in Christ. All those who do not, however, will be damned, which here does not mean consigned to hell, but annihilated entirely. Five months later, on October 21, God will destroy the earth and the entire universe. In the intervening months, the world will experience the most severe earthquakes and natural disasters ever. And all this will start at 6pm, local time, on May 21.
   Harold Camping, a Christian radio broadcaster and the head of Family Radio, which has about 150 outlets in the US and elsewhere in the world, made this prediction. He previously predicted that the rapture would occur on September 6, 1994, although he did allow at the time that he could be wrong. But he has not expressed any similar reservations this time.
   Camping has many followers all over the world. One of them spent a large part of his life savings on a thousand advertising posters throughout New York City, proclaiming this day of judgment. Other followers have paid for similar ads in numerous newspapers.
   Camping was for much of his life a member of the same denomination that I belong to, but since then he has departed far from its theology, especially regarding his understanding of Christ's return and the doctrine of annihilation, that those who do not believe in Christ will be totally destroyed.
   Camping claims that all churches and denominations have become apostate. Family Radio, however, is not a church, although it does encourage careful Bible study. Such study is what convinced him and his followers to be able to date Christ's return accurately to this precise date. The arithmetic involved is complicated, and not entirely convincing, at least to me. In a similar fashion, Camping has precisely dated the creation of the world and the flood at the time of Noah.
    On the radio I just heard that Camping refuses to be interviewed about this judgment day. "Ask me on Sunday," he reputedly said, "but I won't be there."
    I am writing this post before this event. I do believe that the world will end one day, but but I reject Camping's position for several important reasons:
    1. I don't believe in the rapture as Camping understands this event. If by rapture, one means that Christ will return one day, then I do agree. But not, as Camping asserts, in the sense of Christ coming to rescue only those who believe in Christ. According to him, this is a very small group of people. By the calculation of some, about 200 million people. These true believers are not found in the existing churches. In contrast, I would follow Operation World and peg the percentage of people who are labelled Christians much higher: about 33%. Admittedly, my definition of a Christian is much wider.
    2. I believe that no one can predict precisely when Christ will return. The newspaper ad mentions some of the biblical texts that are often used by those who reject Camping's system of dating. But no one, not even Christ when he was still here on earth, knows the exact time of his return. God does provide signs, but these serve to warn us what he intends to do, not give an exact timetable. Camping refutes this. If you want to follow his reasoning, go to the relevant part at www.timehasanend.org.
    3. I reject the doctrine of annihilation. When Christ returns, God will not destroy the world, but he will restore it and will make it even better than the original creation was. Because of the fall, God is busy with the creation working towards a world that would otherwise not have been possible. I will write more about what God is doing with his creation in a future post.
   How Harold Camping will respond, if the rapture does not take place on May 21, only he knows.