Could a “2-state solution” be at an impasse with irrevocable divine edicts? Or, should solutions based on: A “2-state solution,” the “road map,” and the “Oslo accord,” be scrapped, in favor of new, progressive, and more innovative approachs?

There are a large number of issues that stand in the way of creating two states in what used to be Palestine. Among these many issue, a ”show-stopper” could well be a “divine” set of problems. A large number of these problems, if you will, deal with the status of Jerusalem. 

United States Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, commented at the beginning of October, 2009, that the peace process should begin without pre-conditions. Her comments were paramount to a tacit admission that pre-conditions will have to include issues of divine nature, and that such items would surely cause the termination of any negotiations before they could begin.

To the Islamic world, Jerusalem is the third most important site, and the Dome of the Rock (Al Aqsa mosque,) a priceless  shrine.

An [undivided] Jerusalem is the most important place for the Jewish people, the ”Kotel,” or ”Western Wall” (within it,) their most cherished spot on earth, and the cornerstone of the state of Israel. 

Since no person alive can speak for the divine, neither an Israeli, nor a Palestinian leader, has the legitimate right to suspend any divine beliefs that their people hold; the state of Jerusalem, is clearly one of these beliefs.

The Palestinians insist that Jerusalem must be under their control, as their capital! Muslims leaders cannot, on their own, relinquish control of the Al Aqsa Mosque, and the Temple Mount, as these are “divinely” a part of their people, their heritage, and in part the roots of their religion. No leader, be it the late Yassir Arafat, or the present-day [partial]  Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas, or anyone else, dead or alive, is empowered to override the divine and trade Jerusalem for peace with the Israelis, or for any other reason.

Since the Temple Mount is the site of the [now destroyed] Jewish Temple (except for the Western Wall,) no mortal Jewish leader has the authority, not religious, political, or military, to give-up, or even share, control of the Jewish [highest] Holy City, and most important place of worship.

How does one deal with the “Palestine” issue where the political and the divine have a fundamental conflict?

Israel is now sixty years old, a vibrant and viable [Jewish] state that could not simply absorb Palestinians within the old boundaries of Palestine, and still survive. Not only will such a situation will likely cause Israel to cease being a Jewish state, it will likely spell-out the end of Judaism., and most of the Jewish people.

In spite of the fact that early Zionists foresaw the fact that religions could be in the way of a 2-state solution and conjured a bi-national state, history rejected that notion. The foresight that was discussed in the 1940′s, and earlier demonstrated vision and international sensitivities, but they were a discussion points that did not amount to anything pragmatic, and must now simply be left for historical speculations.

Israel’s development of the last sixty years rules the bi-national state option as a relic of the past. Even though such an idea is something that might have been a positive undertaking, it can not even be considered seriously today. Even though it does not seem too far-fetched to have two Semite groups (Arabs, and Jews,) with primarily two monotheist religions (Judaism, and Islam,) living in peace and sharing one country, it took courage to discuss. Neither the Arab nations (based mostly on Koran edicts, and greed,) nor most of the Zionists, took these proposals as seriously as one might have desired.

To the Muslims, the Jewish population was no more than a thorn in their side, a thorn they thought they could remove by using the military might of militaries representing 200+ million population, versus the quasi-military force of the barely one million Jews of Palestine of the 1940′s.

To the Jewish people, a Jewish state to shelter the Jewish people who suffered for thousands of years, and who were not welcomed by too many nations after the holocaust, was an imperative. Zionism was designed to create a Jewish state, a state in which Jews will rule, a state in which they, or any other people be discriminated. 

The fundamental requirements of the Jewish and Palestinians, are not compatible. To accomplish a solution that will have roots and be sustainable, any present-day solutions to the Palestinian issue must include the neighboring countries. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, must all participate in a solution if a viable arrangement is to be made.

Boundaries will need to be reviewed and likely modified, they may well have to consider historical facts going back to the League of Nations’ Mandate to the British for governing the territory. In order not to disturb religious sensitivities beyond reasonable bounds, one may have to consider an Israel with the boundaries of after the 1967 [defensive] war.

Gaza may need to be annexed to Egypt, and the “West bank” to Jordan. Jerusalem will likely remain the capital of Israel while all religious sites controlled by an International body to allow equal access to all worshipers.

For the Palestinians to insist on Israel giving all building in Jerusalem prior to any peace-talks, is paramount to having Israel abandon that city; a task no Israeli leadership is empowered to do. Many of the Jewish prayers clearly state: “Should I forget Jerusalem, so may I forget my right [hand,]” not something to take lightly! 

For the Palestinians to give up Jerusalem, without even at least a power-sharing situation, will also be beyond their leadership authority.

The impasse which in large way is driven by uncompromising, and irrevocable,  religious demands, is real; new approaches to solving the Palestinian/Israeli problem must be explored, and be dome without insisting that “Oslo,” or “the Roadmap to Peace,” should be revived, or that other past efforts be brought back to life.

The “Road Map to Peace,” the process for implementing the “Oslo accord,” should be viewed for what it is, an attempt to circumvent problems that neither the Israeli, nor the Palestinian leaderships are empowered to carry out.

It is time that the warring parties (Palestinians versus Israelis) to agree that a new approach for cessions of hostilities, and for arriving at a lasting peace, must be explored. It is also time for the United Nations,  the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the rest of the International Community, with all their good intentions, to study the roots of the problem and accept the fact that simplistic solutions that do not deal with religious issues, are bound to fail; and look for new approaches, approaches based on thorough understanding of the parties involved.

Well thought out, progressive, and pragmatically feasible new approaches must be brought to the table, to collectively bring about a solution to the problem.