Israel Matzav

Malley: 'I still favor a two-state solution'

In Tuesday's New York Times, Robert Malley (the only man to attend Camp David 2000 and blame Ehud Barak for its failure) and Hussein Agha wrote that a two-state solution 'doesn't resolve anything,' leading many to believe that they were advocating a one-state solution.

That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.

For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its borders and powers. As Israelis make plain by talking about the imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the refugees’ rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.

What did Malley and Agha mean by that? I argued that it meant that they were finally acknowledging that the conflict is existential and not just about borders. Others agreed that Malley and Agha were acknowledging the existential nature of the conflict, but felt that their article signaled an ominous turn in where the discussions are heading.

David Halperin of Israel Policy Forum caught up with Malley, who insisted that a 'one-state solution' was not what he had in mind.

In your recent New York Times op-ed co-authored with Hussein Agha, you write "It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948." Are you arguing in favor of a one-state solution?

MALLEY: Absolutely not. Our work over the years has consistently been about the two state solution. This article is no exception, as the passages you cite illustrate. Far from arguing against the two-state solution, we are seeking to understand why, despite years of efforts, attempts to achieve it have failed. And we are suggesting that this has less to do with disagreements over the precise territorial boundaries than with something deeper that must be grappled with rather than ignored.

You also conclude that "the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel." Some analysts have interpreted the op-ed as arguing that peace between Israelis and Palestinians is not possible unless Israel loses its Jewish nature. Is that what you are saying?

MALLEY: No. What we are saying is that Israelis insist that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state, that Palestinians insist that the rights of the refugees be respected and that a sustainable outcome somehow will have to take those two views - shared by vast number on both sides -- into account. Neither of those issues involves the borders of a future Palestinian state or its sovereignty. Israel is a Jewish state and that's a fact.

Some also have interpreted the op-ed as calling for a right of return. Are you saying that?

MALLEY: We are merely restating the fact that Palestinians insist on recognition of the refugees' rights. We are not calling for the right of return. It is not the same thing.

At the JPost's blog page, Shmuel Rosner questions whether this means that Malley expects Israel to drop the demand that it be recognized as a 'Jewish state.' Well, that's certainly what the code would indicate. When you say "Israel is a Jewish state and that's a fact," it means "you don't need the 'Palestinians' to tell you that you're a Jewish state."

The problem with that equation is the flip side. If the 'Palestinians' won't admit that Israel is a Jewish state, it means that they hope to undo that de facto status by flooding Israel with 'Palestinian refugees.' That demand makes the entire 'peace process' a non-starter for Israel.

But what I find more ominous (Malley is a close adviser to President Obama) is Malley's statement regarding 'refugees.' What 'rights' of 'refugees' does he propose to recognize that are something less than a 'right of return'? For the 'Palestinians' the 'right of return' is the only 'right' that matters. If Israel recognizes any 'right' of 'Palestinian refugees' - be it an acknowledgment of fault or 'compensation' or a 'limited right of return,' we will place ourselves on a slippery slope towards flooding Israel with 'Palestinian refugees.' If that's what the Obama administration has in mind, they need to be told quickly that it's not going to happen.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:51 PM