A poll was published today on the Web site of Israel's largest daily newspaper stating that most Palestinians and most Israelis want a two-state solution.
So much for Bibi's "nationalist" mandate.
Here are the results:
Results of the poll, commissioned by the grass-roots OneVoice Movement, indicate that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis are willing to accept a two-state solution.
The margin of error on the Palestinian side was 4.1 percent and 4.5 percent on the Israeli side, the group said.
So the Palestinian number could be as low as 69.9% and the Israeli number as low as 73.5%. That's still more than two-thirds.
The sticking point, it appears, is that most Israelis are still reluctant to divide Jerusalem. So here's my suggestion: Don't.
That doesn't mean that "Jerusalem, complete and undivided," should remain Israel's capital and the Palestinians should relinquish their right to a capital in East Jerusalem. Rather, what it means is one of a couple of scenarios other than Israel keeping all Jerusalem to itself and no Palestinian capital therein. I see them as being three:
- Share the city and make it the capital of both states. The Knesset can stay where it is, and the Palestinians can put their parliamentary and other buildings in East Jerusalem, if they so choose.
No, as far as I know, a city has never been shared by two countries, nor, obviously, has been the capital of both. But I see very few reasons why it couldn't work. Outside of government arrangements, the arrangements regarding the holy sites in the city should remain the same: The Rabbinate over Jewish sites, the Waqf over Muslim cites, and the churches over the Christian sites.
This would require free access to the entire city by the entire population of both countries. This is the sticking point that I can see, but not if Israeli settlements that have very nearly completely surrounded Jerusalem are dismantled. Then the capital can be approached from either side and the borders can be policed by whomever the border is shared with: Israelis on the parts of the city that border Israel and Palestinians on the parts that border Palestine. The city itself should have a joint police force but, in the best-case scenario, be demilitarized entirely to avoid any possible (perhaps probable) escalation of tensions.
As for everyone else, they can stay put in their own neighborhoods.
- Have it be the capital of neither state. Move the Israeli capital to Tel-Aviv and let the Palestinians have theirs where they choose: My guess is they'd probably have it at Ramallah or another large city. Perhaps even Gaza City.
All other arrangements would continue under proposal #1.
- Internationalize the city. This would require the moving of all political institutions of both countries. I would imagine some kind of multinational force would be required in the city — not necessarily the U.N. — but the religious arrangement, again, could probably remain the same.
The only other scenario I can see, if this is really what is keeping the Israelis from throwing their lot with the peace camp, is continued war over a city that has been disputed, to say the least, for a very long time.
Ehud Barak put Jerusalem on the table at Taba. Kadima leaders have also uttered this once-upon-a-time blasphemy. There's no reason it can't be divided, particularly along the Clinton Parameters. Perhaps Israelis will see that some day and really agree to it. In the meantime, the three above suggestions are the only plausible ones I can see.
I want to make one thing clear: I'm a relatively conservatively religious Jew. I believe, e.g., that Jerusalem is the holiest city on earth. I believe, furthermore, that the Temple Mount is the holiest place on earth. But these places will be no less holy no matter who owns them, and as long as my access to my holy places — and the access of my coreligionists — is not compromised, then I'm satisfied to see Jerusalem divided or dealt with in one of the above ways. I love Jerusalem enough to let it go.