"Israel today is faced with a great challenge: either the two-state solution or demographic death. … Some 6.8 million Palestinians and 6.6 million Jews live today between the Jordan River and the [Mediterranean Sea]. … Israel must now decide between the two-state solution and the one-state solution, the significance of which is a choice between either giving up on its democratic character or its Jewish identity."
No, these remarks were not taken from late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "two-state" speech in 2003, nor are they from former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's speech at the memorial ceremony for assassinated minister Rehavam Ze'evi. They are not from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2009 Bar-Ilan University speech, where he said he was committed to the two-state solution, either. These were the remarks made by Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh at the Socialist International Conference in Ramallah last week.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
There will always be those who dispute the demographic data but it is hard to deny their great similarity to the statistics presented by Col. Uri Mendes, deputy head of the Civil Administration, to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee last March. These remarks are an expression of the historic encounter between two nationalist movements – the Palestinians and our own – and follow many years of hoping to gain all of the land and not give up even one inch of sovereignty to our fellow man. Israel has a partner and that partner is in Ramallah. The coming Israeli election could also see the creation of a partner on the Israeli side.
The Blue and White and Likud parties are running neck-and-neck in the polls and many are of the opinion that, one way or another, they will establish the next government. The common denominator among representatives of the former is the desire to prevent Netanyahu from continuing his role as prime minister, given the serious allegations regarding his conduct. The common denominator among Likud members is the desire to ensure Netanyahu's continued tenure, assuming he is not ultimately found guilty of those allegations by a court of law. Neither of these motivations is enough.
Blue and White cannot suffice with one issue that, although normative and important in and of itself, is disconnected from the essential diplomatic issues that are on the agenda of Israeli society. Nor can the Likud suffice with pathetic declarations of allegiance to Netanyahu, which will not be worth the paper they are written on should reality serve to create unexpected possibilities.
We should listen to Shtayyeh. Israel needs a border with the Palestinians in order to remain a Jewish and democratic state. Such a border could be created through an agreement or, for lack of any other option, unilateral action, but the fact that it is vital to one side does not mean that it is harmful to the other. This is certainly a situation in which one side benefits and the other side is not left wanting. And while it is very late for such a move, it is still not too late.
Should a national unity government be established, it will need to rely on its participants' commitment to determine, during the next government, an eastern border for Israel. Doing so is not just in Israel's vital interest but an agreed-upon interest, as the leaders of the parties poised to take part in such a government have publicly said they are against the establishment of a binational state. Unlike other leaders in the next government, Netanyahu is in the minority when it comes to his party's institution view on the subject. But it is safe to say that if Likud lawmakers are willing to commit to supporting him no matter what, they are also supposed to support any diplomatic process he might initiate.
I am not suggesting we set the criminal matter aside. Blue and White cannot renounce the subject and be satisfied with Netanyahu ending his term in office as the law demands of him – at the conclusion of a lengthy legal process. Should the decision be made to have a rotating premiership, and that Netanyahu will be the first to serve as Israel's prime minister as part of the rotation agreement, it would be possible to come to an agreement that sees Netanyahu resign, as the law demands of Israel's ministers, though not its prime minister, should an indictment be filed, and that his replacement come from the Likud until his tenure was set to come to an end. Since he is convinced that "there will be nothing, because there is nothing," he should have no reason to object to such an arrangement.
