The two-state paradigm is being widely undermined these days. Martin Indyk says that Israel is pushing itself into a binational reality, Mustafa Barghouthi says that nearly 50 years of occupation have created “full-fledged apartheid,” Ali Abunimah says that dialogue without action is just prolonging the suffering of Palestinians, Shibley Telhami says two-thirds of Americans would support one state with equal rights rather than occupation, and Jodi Rudoren of the New York Times reports that young Palestinians don’t believe in partition any more after endless failed negotiation.
But on National Public Radio the other morning, two states were alive and well. Below is host Steven Inskeep questioning Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and repeatedly stating the “necessary” nature of the two-state solution. In fairness, Erekat says that he is for the two-state solution, and that Palestinian public opinion supports a two-state solution. What I am pointing out is Inskeep’s absolute adherence to the idea of two states. You’d think a journalist would be bringing up the new trend. Nope.
INSKEEP: You’re making two very interesting points that I want to make sure people are clear about. You’re saying that now Palestinians are united under one government or they will be if this agreement is concluded that makes it possible to make a full deal with Israel. That’s one point you’re making….
INSKEEP: The other point you’re making, though, is that you wish to have peace on the basis of recognizing Israel and a two-state solution. Hamas, of course, has rejected any recognition of Israel. Are you saying that you believe you can bring Hamas to recognize Israel?..
INSKEEP: And you believe that Palestinians on the whole would vote for a peace deal that includes recognition of Israel in a two-state solution….
INSKEEP: Israeli officials have said, a number of them, some of them have said to me that they acknowledge that a two-state solution is necessary, that a Palestinian state is actually necessary for the long term survival of Israel. And that makes me…
INSKEEP: Well, let me get to the question here, which is if both sides agree that at two-state solution is necessary, I’m curious when you get away from the rhetoric, when you’re quietly in a room, is there some sense that people on both sides understand what the solution needs to be here?
Hi Phil,
This interview seems to be a poorly attempt at balanced with his previous interview with Ron Dermercwhich was the ambassador spewing talking points and Unskeep nodding along. Once you see that you’ll see why Inskeep focus on Hamas recoginizing Israel’s right to exist little focus settlements on Kerry’s apartheid comment(none)
Here’s the previous NPR piece
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/307913474/israel-insists-hamas-must-change-for-peace-talks-to-resume
–DERMER: Yeah, but from there to apartheid is something else. I mean, there’s no connection between Israel and apartheid, not only because it’s not a racial system in Israel, also because virtually all those things that Israel put in place was to protect its own security. So I don’t think there’s any way that you could put the world apartheid – which is a very charged word and has a certain historical meaning – it’s totally inaccurate when it comes to the state of Israel. There is a question of – what you’re raising – that you don’t want to incorporate, whatever the number is, a million and a half, two million Palestinians, who live in the West Bank, Judea and Samaria, who live in these areas and to incorporate them into the state of Israel. We don’t want a binational state. We want Israel to be a Jewish state and a democratic state. And here you have this tension. But at the same time that we’re trying to sort of separate from the Palestinians and give them a state of their own, we also want to make sure that we’re not endangering our security.–
See it’s not apartheid if it’s in the name of security. Also Judea and Samaria is a red flag for an Greater Israel supporter.
He pretty much stated Israel wants the land but not the people. Which seems pretty racist and discriminatory
The implications of no two state solution are unthinkable therefor reality shall not intervene in the discussions but facts on the ground proceed apace.
Unfortunately, NPR’s failures in objective reporting regarding I/P go far, far beyond this.
also because virtually all those things that Israel put in place was to protect its own security
Indeed. For security is a zealous god. The most sinister organizations in history were devoted to security, like Extraordinary Commission for Internal Security (and successors), Secret State Police and so on. Apartheid South Africa did a lot for security too.
Mind you, security of a nation means more than physical survival of the members and their asset, they must also survive as a nation and a culture (and perhaps as a religion). This requires to eliminate threats like internal traitors (self-hating Jews ??), threats to the purity of national DNA (non-Jews who date Jews or worse, this threat is particularly dire in the Exile, but even in Israel the threat from foreign and Arab brides and grooms is very much a matter of concern), threats against the martial spirit of the nation and so on and so on.