Part IV of the draft program reads: “In the Middle East, there is a growth of resistance to U.S. attempts to dominate military, political, and economic life, through its own direct intervention and invasion and through support for the Israeli occupation and military control of the territory that must belong to the Palestinian Arab people under the necessary two-state solution.” (p. 38, emphasis added)

As the situation in Gaza grows more desperate, this oft-proposed resolution is being seen as less and less workable. Israeli settlements have expanded in total disregard of the Oslo Accords, creating permanent, immobile structures on Palestinian land. Families have been ripped from their homes, land confiscated and resistance swiftly crushed. A majority of Palestinians no longer support a two-state solution, and even fewer believe they will live to see a state of their own. Israeli Jews carry similar skepticism — though most of course see no problem with their government’s brutal policies in the first place.

According to the solidarity statement signed at the 20^th International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Greece, the Palestinian Communist Party, the Palestinian People’s Party and the Communist Party of Israel (Maki) endorse a two-state solution with an independent Palestinian state with the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.

Meanwhile, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine fiercely struggles for a secular, democratic and socialist Palestine. In the past it has accepted the 1967-based two-state solution as something of a transitional demand — an acceptable temporary victory in the broader context of liberation for all Palestinians. This strategy changed in 2010, no doubt after observation of the conditions mentioned earlier. I bring this up only for context. I don’t think altering our position would constitute a break from our fraternal parties — they may, in fact, welcome a shift in opinion from the rest of the world. But perhaps someone who’s had direct contact could provide more clarity here.

Considering the reality on the ground, is it no longer feasible to advocate a two-state solution? Would we not be better served responding to the heightened awareness of this question among the population of the US and elsewhere with some heightening of our own?

Comments