TORONTO — The topic of the debate was simple yet maddeningly complex: is a resolution of Israel’s protracted and bloody dispute with the Palestinians a real possibility or merely an illusion?
Derek Penslar and Clifford Orwin
Two University of Toronto professors debated the contentious issue politely last week at a Holy Blossom Temple forum presented by the Gerald Schwartz/Heather Reisman Centre for Jewish Learning.
The debaters were Derek Penslar, a liberal and an optimist, and Clifford Orwin, a conservative and a pessimist.
Penslar, the Samuel Zacks professor of Jewish history, is the director of the university’s Jewish studies program. Orwin is a professor of political philosophy and the chair of the Munk Centre’s program in political philosophy and international affairs.
They appeared at a seminar titled One State, Two States: Can the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict be Resolved?
Penslar, though conceding that the current prospects for peace are at a low ebb, touted the two-state solution as a plausible “cornerstone” of peace.
He said this approach is supported in both Israel and the Arab world, adding sombrely that Israel can’t afford to grant Palestinian refugees the right of return.
Considering other options on the table, he dismissed the one-state solution as neither feasible nor imminent, and he described a Palestinian confederation with Jordan as a non-starter.
Penslar suggested that the Palestinian business class is particularly well disposed toward peace. “This group needs to be strengthened so that its voice can be heard,” he recommended.
The status quo is not an option, said Penslar, co-editor of Jewish Social Studies and the Journal of Israeli History and the author of books on Israel and the Zionist movement. As he put it, “The status quo won’t work and will not lead to stability.”
Warning that the Palestinians are not a “quiet people” who’ll accept occupation and subjugation lightly, Penslar said they have continually fought for their independence and statehood.
He cited, among other events, the 1936-39 Arab Revolt and the first and second Palestinian uprisings.
Penslar took note of the long saga of Palestinian rejectionism of Israel, but argued there is still a chance for peace.
Calling Israel’s policy of building settlements in the territories a “fundamentally misguided” one, he said that the cost of maintaining them has risen exponentially, while the majority of Israeli Jews want to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
Orwin, in his opening remarks, declared that neither a one-state or a two-state solution offers a credible way out of the present morass.
From a Zionist point of view, the one-state alternative is intolerable because it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Yet the two-state solution is “unacceptable” to Arabs, he claimed without elaborating.
Orwin said that Israel is “stuck” with the status quo because there are no “serious” Palestinian partners. But where the status quo will lead cannot be foretold.
Nevertheless, Israel is obligated to embrace a two-state solution, he said. Orwin, however, held out little hope that Israeli territorial concessions would ever please the Arabs.
An Israeli peace agreement with the Palestinians is inconceivable due to the fact that the Palestinian camp is ideologically and politically divided along Fatah-Hamas lines, he pointed out.
Further, Palestinian moderates are very weak and loath to state their positions publicly. Palestinian incitement against Israel poses an “enormous problem,” too, he said.
Citing an example, he mentioned a computer centre that had been named in honour of a suicide bomber.
Taking up the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Orwin said they can only be regarded as an obstacle to peace if peace is really possible. Yet Israel should refrain from expanding existing settlements, he commented, saying they are “killing” its image.
Placing himself momentarily in Palestinian shoes, Orwin mused, “If you were a Palestinian Arab, you most certainly would hate the Jews.”
Acknowledging that the Palestinians have been displaced from their homes, he agreed they have good reason to be intransigent.
Nonetheless, he stated, Israel would be “crazy” to bow to the Palestinian demand for a right of return.