Benjamin Netanyahu, MSc, Prime Minister of Israel, in a June 14, 2009 transcript titled "Address by PM Netanyahu at Bar-Ilan University," available at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, offered the following:
"In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other. These two realities - our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it - have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us... If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state."
Barack Obama, JD, 44th President of the United States, in an Apr. 6, 2009 speech transcript titled "Remarks by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament," available at the White House website, offered the following:
"In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a goal that I will actively pursue as President of the United States. We know the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take steps that are necessary to build confidence and trust. Both Israelis and Palestinians, both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome longstanding passions and the politics of the moment to make progress towards a secure and lasting peace."
Ehud Barak, MSc, 16th Prime Minister of Israel from 1999-2001, in a June 13, 2002 New York Times Review of Books article titled "Camp David and After: An Exchange," offered the following:
"It is true that there are demographic threats to its [Israel's] existence. That is why a separation from the Palestinians is a compelling imperative. Without such a separation [into two states] there is no future for the Zionist dream."
Mahmoud Abbas, Csc, President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in an Oct. 21, 2005 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Online NewsHour interview transcript titled "Newsmaker: Mahmoud Abbas," available at the PBS website, stated the following:
"I believe that the road map [two-state solution proposed by the Quartet: European Union, United Nations, United States, and Russia] is the international - the only international reference that is available now to resolve the Middle East question and the Palestinian-Israeli struggle. It contains everything in order to solve this question right from the beginning to the end including the Palestinians' independent state. I belive that we are - after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, we should go back to this plan so that we can implement it to arrive at what President Bush had announced in his initiative to establish the independent Palestinian state, which is viable, contiguous, live side-by-side with the state of Israel."
Peter Beinart, MPhil, Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at The City University of New York and Senior Political Writer for The Daily Beast-Newsweek, said in an Apr. 4, 2012 interview titled "Peter Beinart: A West Bank Two-State Solution Isn't Easy," available at thedailybeast.com:
"The best option to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the creation of a Palestinian state in which Palestinians have the symbols and rights and dignity of the triumph of their own national movement as statehood. Palestinian citizens of Israel... should have complete individual rights. But they should also be able to look across the border and see a Palestinian flag and a Palestinian national anthem in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
Ban Ki-Moon, MPA, Eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a Jan. 8, 2007 United Nations speech transcript titled "In Remarks to Security Council, Secretary General Pledges to Play Role of Harmonizer, Bridge-Builder," available at the United Nations website, offered the following:
"I will strive to inject new momentum into our search for peace and stability in the Middle East. This means rededicating ourselves to the work of the Quartet [a two-state solution was proposed by the Quartet: European Union, United Nations, United States, and Russia] in resolving differences between Israel and Palestine -- differences which carry such a unique symbolic and emotional charge for people far beyond the physical boundaries of the conflict."
Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli Foreign Minister, said in his June 23, 2010 article titled "My Blueprint For a Resolution" in the Jerusalem Post:
"The solution lies not in appeasing the maximalist territorial demands of the Palestinians, but in truly creating 'two states for two peoples.'
The current demands from some in the international community are to create a homogeneous pure Palestinian state and a binational state in Israel. This becomes the one-and-a-half to half state solution. For lasting peace and security we need to create true political division between Arabs and Jews, with each enjoying self-determination.
Therefore, for a lasting and fair solution, there needs to be an exchange of populated territories to create two largely homogeneous states, one Jewish Israeli and the other Arab Palestinian. Of course, this is not to preclude that minorities will remain in either state where they will receive full civil rights...
We have seen that history is moving away from attempts to accommodate competing national aspirations in a single state. The former Yugoslavia was broken up into many separate states. Czechoslovakia was split into two, and even in Belgium there are strong voices who wish to see that nation broken into separate Walloon and Flemish territories. The precedent of creating new states based on ethnic, national and even religious boundaries has been established in the international community and is becoming the trend. With all the difficulties involved, this is the only solution that ensures long-term stability in the region."
The Palestinian Authority (PA), in its "Foreign Policy" website section title "Peace Process" (accessed Jan. 11, 2005), stated:
"A complete Israeli withdrawal to the border of 1967 in referent to the United Nations Security Counsel resolution 242 and the principle of land for peace. Termination, by Israel, the occupying power, of the illegal annexation of the occupied city of Jerusalem (alquds) in referent to the United Nations Security Counsel Resolution 478 of 1980, and a comprehensive withdrawal from the city in order to become fully under full and complete jurisdiction of the Palestinian state. To dismantle settlement infrastructure in referent to the United Nations Security Counsel Resolution 465 on 1980 and all relevant UN Resolutions. Stressing on the Rights of the Palestinian refugees in referent to the resolution 194 which guaranteed their right to return to their homes and to compensation (the right of return). The recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination under the relevant UN Resolutions, especially the Security Council Resolution 1397, and to restore its complete sovereignty on its territory of the West Bank including Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip."
Ami Ayalon, MA, former Head of the Israeli Navy and Shin-Bet and former Minister and Member of Knesset, said in his Apr. 23, 2012 opinion-editorial titled "Peace Without Partners" in the New York Times:
"[Israel] should set the conditions for a territorial compromise based on the principle of two states for two peoples, which is essential for Israel’s future as both a Jewish and a democratic state.
Israel can and must take constructive steps to advance the reality of two states based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps — regardless of whether Palestinian leaders have agreed to accept it. Through a series of unilateral actions, gradual but tangible changes could begin to transform the situation on the ground...
We recognize that a comprehensive peace agreement is unattainable right now. We should strive, instead, to establish facts on the ground by beginning to create a two-state reality in the absence of an accord. Imperfect as it is, this plan would reduce tensions and build hope among both Israelis and Palestinians, so that they in turn would press their leaders to obtain a two-state solution. Most important, as Israel celebrates 64 years of independence later this week, it would let us take our destiny into our own hands and act in our long-term national interest, without blaming the Palestinians for what they do or don’t do."
J Street, an American pro-Israel pro-peace non-profit organization, wrote in its 2012 statement "About J Street," available at jstreet.org:
"The future of Israel depends on achieving a two-state resolution to the conflict with the Palestinian people. The Palestinians too must have a national home of their own, living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. It serves Israel’s and America’s interests, and it is right and just.
Israel must choose among three things: being a Jewish homeland, remaining democratic and maintaining control over all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. It can only have two — it can only be both Jewish and democratic by giving up the land on which a Palestinian state can be built in exchange for peace.
For too long, pro-Israel advocacy has defined this conflict in zero-sum terms, as 'us versus them,' a conflict in which there can be only one winner. But being pro-Israel doesn’t require an 'anti.' Israel’s long-term security actually depends on fulfilling the aspirations of the Palestinian people through a two-state solution."
George Mitchell, JD, attorney and former US Senator (D-ME), in a June 9, 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology commencement transcript titled "George J. Mitchell Commencement Address," available at the MIT website, pronounced:
"Then, there must be a prompt resumption of negotiations to achieve a two-state solution. What is most important is that both recognize that the only way to achieve a lasting solution is through negotiation... The road map offers Palestinians the alternative of a non-violent path to a Jewish state, to a Palestinian state living in peace alongside a Jewish state, the two state solution that a majority on both sides continue to say they support."
The Office of the Quartet Representative, composed of the European Union, United Nations, United States, and Russia, in an Apr. 30, 2003 document titled "A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli Palestinian Conflict," available at the UN website, presented the following:
"...The destination is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005, as presented in President Bush’s speech of 24 June, and welcomed by the EU, Russia and the UN in the 16 July and 17 September Quartet Ministerial statements. A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement... A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah – endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit – calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement. This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive peace on all tracks, including the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks."
Tzipi Livni, LLB, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Acting Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the quote, in a Nov. 27, 2007 speech transcript titled "Address by FM Livni to the Annapolis Conference," available at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, stated:
"I am proud at where Israel is today. I am sorry that the Arab world rejected the principle of partition in the past, and I hope and pray that today there is an understanding that instead of fighting, the right thing to do is to build a shared future in two separate states: one - the State of Israel, which was established as a Jewish state, a national home for the Jewish people; and the other - Palestine - which will be established to give a full and complete solution to Palestinians wherever they may be. Those who are in Gaza and the West Bank, and those in the refugee camps in other Arab countries with temporary status, waiting for a sense of belonging to a national state - the same feeling of wholeness that the establishment of the State of Israel gave to the Jewish refugees who were forced to leave Arab countries and Europe and became partners in building Israel. I believe that the solution of two nation states serves the interests of both sides. Not every celebration of ours is cause for sorrow on the other side, and vice versa. I say to my Palestinian colleagues: Do not bemoan the establishment of the State of Israel; establish your own state, rejoice in its establishment and we will rejoice with you, since for us the establishment of the Palestinian state is not our Nakba, or disaster - provided that upon its establishment the word 'Nakba' be deleted from the Arabic lexicon in referring to Israel. Knowing that the conflict has a solution is not enough. Reaching the solution depends first of all upon us - on the two sides themselves and their ability to conduct negotiations, to touch on the most sensitive points and to provide answers based on the understanding that neither side can obtain everything it wants and that compromises are necessary on both sides. The solution also depends on the ability of the leaders to cope with extremists and terrorism, and we are not speaking here only of the leaders of the sides directly involved in the conflict. This is the central task of the entire world leadership, and especially of the Arab and Muslim world."
Gershom Gorenberg, MA, Associate Editor of The Jerusalem Report, wrote in his July 2, 2009 article "Two States, Still One Exit" in The American Prospect:
"Difficult as reaching a two-state agreement is, it is still a more practical solution than a single state. It has more political support on both sides. And in a very basic way, more psychological than philosophical, most Israeli Jews and most Palestinians are nationalists: Their personal identity is rooted in a national community for which they want political independence...
[Israeli and Palestinian] political preferences reflect the exhausted recognition that the other national group isn't going away. For Palestinians, this means that partition is the most likely way to reach independence. For Jews, dividing the land into two states is the only way to maintain a democracy with a Jewish majority...
Underlying those figures is a simple fact: In general, Palestinians want more than individual civil rights. They want political sovereignty as a nation -- a community sharing a language, a past, heroes, customs, a calendar, a connection to a landscape. In general, Jews in Israel seek the same thing, want it deeply, assume it to be essential. Each group wants to determine its future with as much independence as is possible in today's world. It is possible to criticize the idea of a nation as a fiction -- but if so, it continues to be one of the most powerful political fictions in the modern world, and not just among Jews and Palestinians.
It may be a mistake to refer to the creation of two states as a solution. Politics doesn't often offer solutions; it offers arrangements. Dividing the land into two nation-states is the least-worst arrangement available."
Vladimir Putin, JD, PhD, President of the Russian Federation, in a transcript of a May 24, 2002 speech titled "Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on the Situation in the Middle East," available at the US Government Printing Office website, offered the following:
"Taking this as their basis, Russia and the USA intend to exert maximum efforts in order to realize this vision of a negotiated settlement of the conflict, which includes the existence of two states - Israel and Palestine - living in peace and security within recognized borders. This has to become part of an all-embracing settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Madrid principles, the formula land for peace', and also existing agreements and accords. We share the kind of approaches which have been reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 1397."
Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic of France, in a June 23, 2008 speech transcript to the Knesset, available in English at ambafrance-uk.org, stated:
"There can’t be peace, even though I know how painful this is, without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two States and guaranteed freedom of access to the Holy Places for all the religions. There can’t be peace without a border negotiated on the basis of the 1967 agreement and exchanges of territory making it possible to build two viable States."
Silvio Berlusconi, JD, Prime Minister of Italy, in a Sep. 23, 2003 transcript titled "Speech to the Anti-Defamation League," available at the Anti-Defamation League website, stated the following:
"As to the Middle East we work shoulder to shoulder with America in order to reach a lasting peace which can guarantee the security and integrity of the State of Israel and the peaceful coexistence between two independent states within safe and secure borders. The Italian Presidency of the European Union is committed to this goal within the Quartet."
Tony Blair, Office of Quartet Representative and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in a Mar. 1, 2005 speech transcript titled "Opening Remarks by Tony Blair at the London Meeting on Supporting the Palestinian Authority," available at UNISPAL-United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine website, offered the following:
"When I was with President Bush at the White House last November, we set out the 5 steps towards a just and peaceful and lasting solution. The first of those was obviously the successful elections of the Palestinian Authority that has happened. The second was to make sure that that took place within the context of an overall vision where everyone understands the end point is the two state solution that President Bush set out himself and all of us have endorsed. The fourth element was the disengagement process going forward and the fifth element was then going back into the Road Map, reinvigorating that so that the conferences necessary to produce a lasting settlement could be undertaken. And we are here at the third step that we set out - which is how do we help and support the Palestinian Authority in their desire to make sure that in the fields of government, security, their economy they can indeed establish that viable Palestinian state."
Ariel Sharon, late Prime Minister of Israel, in a Dec. 18, 2003 speech transcript titled "Address by PM Ariel Sharon at the Fourth Herzliya Conference," available at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, stated:
"Seven months ago, my Government approved the Roadmap to peace, based on President George Bush's June 2002 speech. This is a balanced program for phased progress toward peace, to which both Israel and the Palestinians committed themselves. A full and genuine implementation of the program is the best way to achieve true peace. The Roadmap is the only political plan accepted by Israel, the Palestinians, the Americans and a majority of the international community. We are willing to proceed toward its implementation: two states Israel and a Palestinian State living side by side in tranquility, security and peace."
Kofi Annan, Seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, in the Sep. 13, 2004 "Secretary-General's Message at the UN International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People," stated:
"The path to a solution is spelled out in the Quartet's Road Map. Its vision is clear – two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. A final settlement that ends the occupation that began in 1967 should be arrived at through negotiations between the two parties, on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and 1515 and the principle of land for peace. Although both parties agreed to undertake a series of parallel and reciprocal steps called for in the plan, efforts to implement those commitments have so far been disappointing. To further delay the implementation of the Road Map is unacceptable, since time is not on our side. Both parties should abide by their obligations under the plan."
Ehud Olmert, LLB, Israeli Prime Minister and Chairman of the Kadima Party, in a transcript of a Jan. 24, 2006 speech titled "Speech at the annual Herzliya Conference in Israel," available at www.herzliyaconference.org, offered the following:
"In order to ensure that we have a Jewish homeland, we cannot continue to control those territories where there is a Palestinian majority. We must as soon as possible lay down a clear-cut border that will ensure a Jewish majority within the state of Israel...The only solution now is two states -- one Jewish, one Palestinian."
Ismail Haniya, Hamas Party Leader, selected as Palestinian Prime Minister, in a Feb. 26, 2006 Washington Post interview titled "We Do Not Wish to Throw Them Into the Sea," stated:
"If Israel withdraws to the '67 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages... Number one, we will establish a situation of stability and calm which will bring safety for our people -- what (Hamas founder) Sheikh (Ahmed) Yassin called a long-term hudna (truce)... If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights, then we are ready to recognise them."
The European Union (EU), in its website section titled "The EU & the Middle East Peace Process: EU’s Position on the Middle East Conflict" (accessed Apr. 20, 2009), offered the following:
"Resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a strategic priority for Europe. Without this, there will be little chance of dealing with other problems in the Middle East.The EU’s objective is a two-state solution with an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel and its other neighbours. The EU considers that peace in the Middle East requires a comprehensive solution. In this regard the EU welcomed the announcement in May 2008 that peace talks between Syria and Israel were to resume peace negotiations through Turkish mediation. These indirect talks are currently suspended. In December 2008, the EU expressed the hope that Lebanon – Israel peace talks would be possible. The EU has praised the Arab Peace Initiative, as a major step forward for the Middle East Peace Process, since it offers a basis for peaceful and normalized relations between Israel and all 22 members of the Arab League."
George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd President of the United States, in an Apr. 11, 2005 speech transcript titled "Remarks With Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," stated:
"I remain strongly committed to the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security... I reaffirmed our commitment to that vision and to the road map as the only way forward to realize it. The road map has been accepted and endorsed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, along with virtually the entire international community."
Jacques Chirac, former President of France, in a July 27, 2005 transcript titled "Statement by M. Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic, on the Occasion of His Meeting with Mr. Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel," available at the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs' website, stated:
"On the eve of the disengagement from Gaza, France stands alongside the Israeli people and the Palestinian people to ensure that, on the occasion of this historic decision, we see a revival, a renewal of the peace process within the framework of the Road Map, a process that should allow Israel to live in peace and security and the Palestinian people to build a State both viable and independent."
Jimmy Carter, 38th President of the United States, in a Dec. 1, 2003 transcript titled "Geneva Initiative Public Commitment Event: Remarks by Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter," available at the Carter Center's website, stated:
"This Geneva initiative [negotiations by former Israeli and Palestinian officials to reach a two-state solution] offers the crucial and unavoidable elements of a permanent peace in the Holy Land. There will be inevitable modifications to this agreement if and when official and sincere peace talks are ever conducted, but the basic premises must remain intact. The alternative is sustained and permanent violence. This agreement would resolve the conflict's most critical issues, including border delineations, Israeli settlements, the excessive occupation of Palestinian lands, the future of Jerusalem and its holy places, and the extremely troubling question of Palestinian refugees. It is unlikely that we shall ever see a more promising foundation for peace."
Condoleezza Rice, PhD, US Secretary of State at the time of the quote, in a US Embassy at Morocco website transcript of a Mar. 25, 2007 press conference titled "Remarks: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas," stated the following:
"Now we are in a situation in which I think a bilateral approach in which I talk in parallel to the parties from a common approach is the best way. We'll use many different geometries, I'm sure, as we go through this process, but the key is to continue down this road toward a two-state solution. The President has been very clear. He was very clear just a couple of days ago that he considers the establishment of a Palestinian state and peace in the Middle East to be among one of his highest priorities, and as his Secretary of State I intend to pursue that."
Brit Tzedek v’Shalom (Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace), in its website section titled "Time to Choose Peace - A Rabbinic Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama" (accessed Apr. 17, 2009), offered the following:
"American Presidents traditionally look to the Jewish community for insight on Israel-related policy. As Jewish clergy, we pledge to mobilize our people behind your leadership for a mutually-acceptable, two-state solution. We pledge to support you through difficult, trying times, and to celebrate with you when the job is done. We pledge to let the American public know: An American President who dedicates himself to the establishment of a durable Israeli-Palestinian peace acts in the best interests of Israel and the United States."
Pope Benedict XVI, PhD, 265th Pope of the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, in a May 9, 2006 document available at the Libreria Editrice Vaticana website and titled "Angelus, Les Combes, Aosta Valley," wrote:
"I strongly renew my appeal to the Parties in conflict to immediately adopt a ceasefire, to permit the sending of humanitarian aid and to seek new ways with the support of the international community to begin negotiations. I take this opportunity to reaffirm... the right of the Israelis to live in peace in their State and the right of Palestinians to possess a free and sovereign Homeland."
Alan M. Dershowitz, LLB, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University, in his 2003 book titled The Case for Israel, wrote:
"A two-state solution to the Israeli and Palestinian claims is both inevitable and desirable... Most of the world currently advocates a two-state solution, including the vast majority of Americans. A substantial majority of Israelis have long accepted this compromise. It is now the official position of the Palestinian Authority as well as the Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi Arabian, and Moroccan governments. Only the extremists among the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as the rejectionist states of Syria, Iran, and Libya, claim that the entire landmass of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip should permanently be controlled either by the Israelis alone or by the Palestinians alone."
Uri Avnery, former Knesset Member, in a Jan. 19, 2001 Media Monitors Network article titled "The Right of Return," wrote the following:
"The historic compromise between Israel and Palestine is based on the principle of 'Two States for Two Peoples.' The State of Palestine is designed to embody the historic personality of the Palestinian-Arab people and the State of Israel is designed to embody the historic personality of the Israeli-Jewish people, with the Arab citizens of Israel, who constitute a fifth of all Israeli citizens, being full partners in the state. It is clear that the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel would completely change the character of the state, contrary to the intentions of its founders and most of its citizens. It would abolish the principle of Two States for Two Peoples, on which the demand for a Palestinian state is based. All this leads to the conclusion that most of the refugees who opt for return will find their place in the State of Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they will be able to build their life there, subject to the laws and decisions of their government."
The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), in an AFTP website section titled "Six Core Principles" (accessed Apr. 16, 2008), offered the following:
"ATFP advocates the following six principles towards a fair & lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: 1. Two sovereign states--Israel and Palestine--living side by side in peace and security based on the borders of June 4, 1967 with mutually agreed upon territorial adjustments. 2. An end to the Israeli occupation and the evacuation of all Israeli settlements, save for equitable arrangements mutually agreed upon by the negotiating parties. 3. A just solution for the Palestinian refugee problem, in accordance with international legality and the relevant UN resolutions. 4. A shared Jerusalem open to all faiths, serving as the capital of two states, providing for the fulfillment of the political aspirations of both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. 5. Full acceptance of Israel by all Arab states, and normalized diplomatic and economic relations throughout the region. 6. A 'Marshall Plan' style package of aid and investment for Palestine and the new Middle East."
The Americans for Peace Now (APN), in an APN website section titled "Where We Stand / Positions: Two-State Solution" (accessed Aug. 3, 2007), stated:
"Now, within a framework of security for Israel with the goal of better securing the Zionist vision of a Jewish and democratic state, it is time to extend the right of sovereignty to the Palestinian people... To end the conflict, we support the creation of a Palestinian state comprising the great majority of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, consequently ending Israeli occupation of these areas. The Palestinian State must have territorial contiguity and so we reject the concept of cantonization."
Ziad J. Asali, MD, President and Founder of the American Task Force on Palestine, in a June 2, 2006 interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), available on the CFR website, stated the following:
"Well, there has emerged, over the course of the past ten years at least, a sense that the only way out of the situation in the Middle East is to establish a State of Palestine alongside Israel so that there will be an end of conflict. There is no other solution to end the conflict in reality. There is an international consensus about it as reflected by the so-called Road Map Quartet, which is after all the whole world. You have the United States, you have Europe, you have the Russians and the United Nations, which is the whole world, and then there is the Arab League, which is twenty-two different states, and there is the previous Palestinian administration, and the Israeli administration, all of them committed to the two-state solution."
Naomi Chazan, PhD, Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, in a May 17, 2005 Al-Hayat article titled "Promote Negotiations or Abandon the Two-State Solution," offered the following:
"Indeed, in line with the Clinton proposals, the Taba talks, the Roadmap, the Arab League initiative, and the detailed Geneva model, there has been a broad consensus that the objective of the current opening is to bring an end to the occupation and to oversee the consolidation of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. The mechanism to achieve this goal is full-fledged negotiations leading to a final status agreement which will formally terminate the conflict."
Noam Chomsky, PhD, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a Mar. 30, 2004 ZNet interview titled "Justice for Palestine?," responded:
"In the short term, the only feasible and minimally decent solution is along the lines of the international consensus that the US has unilaterally blocked for the last 30 years: a two-state settlement on the international border (green line), with 'minor and mutual adjustments,' in the terms of official US policy, though not actual policy after 1971... Perhaps in the longer term, as hostility and fear subside and relations are more firmly developed along non-national lines, there will be a possibility of moving towards a federal version of binationalism, then perhaps on to closer integration, perhaps even to a democratic secular state -- though it is far from obvious that that is the optimal arrangement for complex societies, there or elsewhere."
Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), in a cmep.org section titled "About Churches for Middle East Peace" (accessed Feb. 25, 2009), offered the following:
"Churches for Middle East Peace advocates positions that: Realize the vision of a region where two viable states, Israel and Palestine, live side-by-side within secure and recognized borders; Promote the sharing of an undivided Jerusalem by the two peoples -- Israelis and Palestinians -- and by the three religious communities that call it sacred; Encourage negotiated, just, and peaceful resolutions to conflicts in the region; Promote the right of people to live in peace and security, free of fears of harassment, oppression, and violence; Encourage the demilitarization of conflicts and help to establish the Middle East as a region free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; Foster respect for human rights based on full observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights covenants of the United Nations, and the Geneva Conventions; Encourage equitable development and humanitarian assistance to the region by the United States and other nations; Promote the rights, and meet the humanitarian needs, of refugees and displaced persons in the region; Support the United Nations in playing an important role in seeking a just resolution of problems and the maintenance of a region without conflict; Recognize the religious importance of the region to Jews, Christians, and Muslims and protect the religious freedom of all."
William J. Burns, DPhil, US Ambassador to Russia, in a transcript of a Dec. 9, 2002 speech titled "Assistant Secretary Burns' Press Conference in Rabat, Morocco," available at the US Department of State's website, stated:
"The situation is extremely difficult right now particularly for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. The situation is also extremely difficult for many Israelis who have to live every day with security threats. And the United States, as President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have made clear, remains firmly committed to trying to find a pathway that brings both peoples back to a political process. President Bush has made very clear his vision of a two-state solution in which two states, Israel and Palestine, can live side-by-side in peace, security, and dignity. We have been working in recent months very actively with our partners in the international Quartet, meaning the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia to develop a practical pathway, a roadmap, to move in the direction of the vision that President Bush has outlined. And, to make a reality of that vision by the year 2005. The difficulties in the path of that undertaking are enormous. I don’t need to tell any of you that."
Yossi Beilin, PhD, Member of the Knesset and Chairman of the Meretz-Yachad party, in a July 28, 2004 Ha'aretz article titled "Q&A with Yahad leader Yossi Beilin," offered the following:
"I think that during the mid 90s Israelis and Palestinians experienced a glimpse of the atmosphere a peace agreement between the two peoples would create. Unfortunately, the cycle of violence that started on September 2000 undermined severely the trust between the two peoples. Nevertheless, I can tell the Palestinians and the Israelis that they should not give up hope. There is no real alternative to the two state solution that will bring peace and stability to our region. The two sides should not give up on their partners for peace but rather strengthen them."
Richard Cohen, nationally syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group, in a Mar. 30, 2004 New York Daily News article titled "U.N. Outrage in Wrong Place," wrote:
"I have repeatedly called for Israel to get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and return to the approximate 1967 borders. I have endorsed every peace plan that has come along and long ago supported a Palestinian state. When a Palestinian talks about his ancestral home in what is now Israel, I get the message. One of the world's most intractable and bloody conflicts is not all that difficult to understand: two people, one land. But in the last several years, this conflict has begun to be seen in the most simplistic terms. The reasons for Israel's founding - the Holocaust, among other things - have been brushed aside in a frenzied, mindless dash to demonize one side. It seems easier just to deal with cartoon figures, bad Israelis (First World colonialists) and good Palestinians (Third World victims)."
David B. Cook, PhD, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, in a May 3, 2007 email to ProCon.org, wrote:
"I basically support Israel, but there definitely needs to be justice for the Palestinians as well. In my opinion, Israel should establish borders more or less along the 1967 lines, but make adjustments for its security needs, and not withdraw from east Jerusalem. A Palestinian state can flourish in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, however, given the security needs of Israel this state needs to be demilitarized. Both Muslim and Jewish religious claims and needs should be taken into account with regard to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount under any final negotiations. But personally I am skeptical as to whether any final negotiations will take place during the near future, because the Palestinian state is weak and it is doubtful that any accord with it will be honored fully. Still, it is in Israel's and the United States' best interest to support what negotiations can take place with the Palestinians and to make sure that the Palestinian people do not suffer unduly during this conflict. But the goal should be an Israeli state that is secure and non-dependent upon U.S. aid and a Palestinian state that is socially and economically viable and equally non-dependent upon outside aid."
Hanan Ashrawi, PhD, Founder and Secretary General of the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH), in a Nov. 5, 2003 MIFTAH website article titled "Peace in the Middle East: A Global Challenge and a Human Imperative," wrote:
"So far, the solution remains simple and attainable, having been repeatedly defined and having become part of a global consensus. The two-state solution is still possible, though becoming increasingly more difficult with the expansion of settlements, by-pass roads, and the apartheid wall throughout Palestinian territory. The bi-national state as a de facto solution will become the only option should Israel continue its expansion and its refusal to withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines and remove the settlements of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Territoriality will give way to demography, and the issue then will become one of democracy, with Zionism forced to reexamine its most basic premises. Jerusalem, both East and West, can become an open city and the shared capital of two states, thus encapsulating the essence of peace and regaining its stature as a city much greater than itself and not subject to exclusive possession or greed of acquisition. The Palestinian refugees must be granted historical, legal, moral, and human recognition and redress in accordance with international law and the requirements of justice. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, but there is a need for the will and courage to act against all adverse forces."
Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) of the United Kingdom, in a FCO website section titled "Countries and Regions: UK and the Middle East Peace Process" (accessed Aug. 2005), presented the following position:
"The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are committed, along with international partners, to achieving the vision of a two-state solution: a democratic, viable and peaceful Palestinian state, alongside a secure Israel. For the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, the Middle East Peace Process is a key foreign policy priority."
Gerald M. Steinberg, PhD, Professor of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University in Israel, in a Sep. 5, 2003 Jerusalem Post article titled "Time for Sharon's 'Painful Concessions,'" wrote:
"The catastrophic failures of the Oslo peace process followed by the hopeless road map show that the exit from this trap will not come via negotiations and agreements for many years, maybe decades. To escape this trap Israel must act unilaterally to dismantle some settlements, incorporate others, and create realistic borders. In this way, on the other side of the border, Palestinians will be forced to take responsibility for their own lives and welfare; and on our side Israelis will be able to live within defensible and rational borders."
Asghar Ali Engineer, General Secretary of the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, in a Nov. 4, 2005 email to ProCon.org, wrote:
"As for solution of Israel-Palestine problem I firmly believe that Israel should recognize the right of Palestinians to have their own state and Palestinians should recognize right of Israeli State to exist and both the states should co-exist in peace and harmony and both parties should abjure violence. The differences should be sorted out through peaceful dialogue. If Israel returns territories captured in 1967 war as per UN resolution, it will greatly help bring about solution of the problem. I am totally against suicide bombing which results in killing of innocent civilians and results in more severe retaliation from Israel and then again Palestinians retaliate. This vicious circle of violence should end immediately. It is only in peace that humanity can prosper. Islam is a religion of peace and peace is very central to Islam, not war or jihad. If Israel ends injustices against Palestinians and Palestinians end their violence. All of us should try our best to make this crucial area peaceful."
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, in a Jan. 30, 2004 Harvard Gazette article titled "Erdogan Calls for Cooperation - Turkish Prime Minister Touts Middle Eastern Democratic Process," quoted from a speech to Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, offered the following:
"It is obvious that putting the Arab-Israeli dispute on a resolution track would be an important element of overcoming the confidence problem in the region. As the prime minister of a nation that has lived in friendship with its Jewish citizens for centuries and continues to maintain close friendship with both Israelis and Palestinians, I should like to declare this explicitly. What is this? Turkey will not accept any notion that denies Israel’s right to exist. Invariably, also, a Palestinian state should live side-by-side with Israel within recognized and secure borders and the security and prosperity of the Palestinian people must be guaranteed."
Louay Fatoohi, PhD, Editorial Director of Packt Publishing, in a May 4, 2007 email to ProCon.org, wrote:
"I do not believe that there can be a one-state solution. There must be two. But the focus must not be on the numbers, but on what they represent. Giving the millions of Palestinians a small land to turn into a country cramming themselves in to live at the mercy of their powerful neighbor is not particularly just or fair."
Douglas J. Feith, JD, UnderSecretary of Defense for Policy of the US Department of Defense at the time of the quote, in an Apr. 21, 2002 document titled "The War on Terrorism -- America's War and Israel's War," available at the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy website, stated:
"Many Palestinians say that their aim is to live dignified lives, in freedom, in peace and prosperity in their own state. That goal could be achieved. The U.S. government supports it. Israeli leaders have for years acknowledged that a Palestinian state will be the ultimate outcome of any negotiated peace. As President Bush noted on April 4th, 'Israel has recognized the goal of a Palestinian state. The outlines of a just settlement are clear: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security.' But that goal grows increasingly remote as terrorism belies and precludes diplomacy -- and darkens the Palestinian people's future."
Marcia Freedman, MA, Founding President of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, in a June 28, 2007 Foundation for Middle East Peace article titled "The Cheshire Cat, the Pit Bull, and Us," offered the following:
"The American Jewish pro-Israel, pro-peace community must now, more imperatively than ever, adhere to its core policies of promoting a genuine two-state solution along the lines of the Taba talks of 2000 or the Geneva Accord of 2004. And that means the establishment of a Palestinian state in at least 97.6 percent of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. If that is to happen at all, it must happen soon, because with every delay in the peace process, with every derailment, with every period of neglect, the settlers and their supporters in the Israeli army, the developers and their supporters in the government, are busy building and expanding Jewish areas of settlement, shrinking the space for a Palestinian state and real, durable peace from one day to the next."
Deborah J. Gerner, PhD, Professor of Political Science at the University of Kansas, in her 1994 book titled One Land, Two Peoples: The Conflict Over Palestine, wrote:
"Two national groups have fought over one small piece of land in the Levant for over 100 years. Palestinians and the Arab countries have been unable to defeat Israel militarily; Israel has been unable to eliminate Palestinian nationalism. Neither of these conditions is likely to change in the near future. Thus, the choice facing Israelis and Palestinians is whether to continue to fight indefinitely or to search for a just and equitable negotiated settlement to their conflict. With mutual recognition, mutual acknowledgment of the right of national self-determination, and mutual acceptance of fixed and secure boundaries for all states in the Levant, a way may be found to resolve this enduring and destructive dilemma in world politics."
Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit, Egyptian Foreign Minister, quoted in a Feb. 21, 2006 CNN.com article titled "Rice Seeks Arab Support in Hamas Talks - U.S. Secretary of State Will Push to Isolate Iran in Mideast," stated:
"We are sure that the Palestinians will recognize the requirements of the situation as they stand today: the road map; the need for a political peaceful settlement amongst the Israelis and the Palestinians; they need to see the two states living side by side in secure and recognized boundaries for both. So these are issues that the Palestinians and the government of Hamas, when composed, will have to face such requirements."
Martin Gilbert, Honorary Fellow of Merton College at Oxford University, in a Dec. 26, 2004 The Observer article titled "Statesmen for These Times," offered the following:
"It may be that in our time Bush and Blair will show the leadership needed to set the two-state solution back on track. Both are now firmly in the political saddle. Their leadership qualities will be put to the test in bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together in working toward an agreement."
Ran HaCohen, PhD, Lecturer in Comparative Literature at Tel-Aviv University, in a Dec. 29, 2003 Antiwar.com article titled "Is There Hope? – Where to Look for It," wrote:
"Dismantle the settlements, withdraw the soldiers and civilians from the occupied territories, create a viable Palestinian state, and find a creative solution for the Palestinian refugees' right of return. In the short range, these are the necessary and sufficient conditions for peace between Israel and the Palestinians."
Yehoshafat Harkabi, PhD, former Major General of the Israel Defense Force General Staff and Chief of Military Intelligence, in an Apr. 1988 Journal of Palestine Studies article titled "A Policy for the Moment of Truth," wrote:
"Their most basic demand is the recognition that the Palestinian people constitutes a political entity whose collective existence deserves political expression as a state... We can't expect them to agree that only the Jews should have a state while the Palestinian Arabs are eligible only for autonomy as a political body under the auspices of Israel... Israel must learn a lesson from the revolution in the world's political thinking... A bad agreement is better than none at all. By its very existence, an agreement will give rise to elements that diminish distrust and create parties with vested interests in the perpetuation of the agreement, as nightmare memories of the previous situation hover in the background... Israel faces a moment of truth, in the full sense of the word. My only message is this: Let us begin to think about our situation seriously. I am still optimistic about the possibility of an agreement."
David Hartman, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in an article titled "Essentials for a Lasting Peace," from a 2005 book titled Peace in the Promised Land: A Realist Scenario, wrote the following:
"A lasting peace is not possible unless each party accepts the right of the other to exist... peace will depend on the clear separation of the hostile parties into sovereign states with mutually acceptable permanent borders."
Michael C. Hudson, PhD, Seif Ghobash Professor of Government and International Relations at Georgetown University, in an Apr. 11, 2003 Middle East Policy Council website document titled "Is a Two-State Solution Still Viable?", offered the following:
"Is a two-state solution still viable? My short answer to that is yes it is and I don't see much else in the way of a solution coming down the pike. I don't think the old bi-national model, even though it is talked about, has a lot of viability under the present historical circumstances."
The Group of Eight (G-8), in a June 29, 2006 document titled "Rice, G8 Ministers Urge Restraint in Israel, Await Iran's Answer, June 29, 2006," available at the US Embassy at Italy website, stated:
"We indeed had an extensive discussion of the situation in the Middle East. We have reaffirmed several commitments, first and foremost our commitment to a two-state solution, the course of which, the pathway of which, is developed in the roadmap and our hopes that all parties will find a way soon back onto the roadmap so that a two-state solution can be found."
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a July 9, 2004 document titled "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004," available at www.icj-cij.org, offered the following:
"The Court would emphasize that both Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes of which is to protect civilian life. Illegal actions and unilateral decisions have been taken on all sides, whereas, in the Court’s view, this tragic situation can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). The 'Roadmap' approved by Security Council resolution 1515 (2003) represents the most recent of efforts to initiate negotiations to this end. The Court considers that it has a duty to draw the attention of the General Assembly, to which the present Opinion is addressed, to the need for these efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region."
The International Crisis Group (ICG), in a July 16, 2002 crisisgroup.org website section titled "Middle East End Game II: How A Comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian Peace Settlement Would Look," offered the following:
"Any solution must address both needs and be consistent with the two-state approach that both sides have accepted as a way to end the Israeli- Palestinian conflict: The State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and the State of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people. In a two-state solution, the State of Palestine will be the focal point for Palestinians who choose to return to the area, without ruling out that Israel would accept some of these refugees."
The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), in a June 10, 2003 ICT website section titled "Stage by Stage, Peace by Piece: Dr. Boaz Ganor, ICT Executive Director and Founder," presented the following:
"Israel must demand as a fundamental condition to the establishment of a Palestinian state that any agreement state specifically that the signing thereof signifies the end of the conflict between the Jewish not Israeli nation and the Palestinians by partitioning the land of Israel into two national states: one for the Palestinians and one for the Jews. From the date of that signing, either ethnic group would be permitted to reside as a minority in the other state, but would not be entitled to demand a change in the national character of the state where he or she lives. While not ruling out future Palestinian-Israeli hostilities, these clauses would at least serve as a ratification of Israel's right to exist as the state of the Jewish nation in the eyes of the rest of the world."
The Jewish Peace Lobby, in a 1989 founding statement available at its website, offered the following:
"We believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a conflict between two nationalisms, which have sought their fulfillment within the same piece of territory. We believe that a lasting resolution of this conflict can only be achieved if each party to the conflict acknowledges the other as having the same rights that it claims for itself. Thus, the Jewish Peace Lobby on the one hand supports Israel and on the other hand affirms the equal right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to establish a state in the West Bank and Gaza, which would live at peace with Israel. The Jewish Peace Lobby does not seek to specify the exact forms through which self determination is to be expressed. A variety of alternatives are consistent with our principles, provided that they are freely chosen. These include: the State of Israel and the State of Palestine living side by side, having resolved the issues of mutual security and demilitarization."
Walid Khalidi, MLit, General Secretary of the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS), in a Spring 1988 Foreign Affairs article titled "Toward Peace in the Holy Land," wrote:
"A Palestinian state in the occupied territories within the 1967 frontiers in peaceful coexistence alongside Israel is the only conceptual candidate for a historical compromise of this century-old conflict. Without it the conflict will remain an open-ended one."
Ghassan Khatib, MA, Palestinian Authority Minister of Planning and the Co-founder and Director of BitterLemons.org, in a July 18, 2005 article titled "Vital for Peace," available at BitterLemons.org, wrote:
"The premise on which the peace process has been based is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is also an integral part of what has become known as Bush's vision for the future of the Middle East, i.e., two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side. This political vision is one of the fundamental bases for the implementation of a future solution based on international legality that calls for Palestinian self determination in an independent state in the territories occupied in the 1967 war."
Michael Lerner, PhD, Editor of TIKKUN Magazine, in a TIKKUN magazine section titled "Core Vision" (accessed Feb. 19, 2009), wrote:
"We call upon Israel to end the Occupation, to return settlers to the pre-1967 borders of Israel (providing them with decent housing), and to take major (though not total) responsibility for Palestinian refugees... We call upon the Palestinian people to acknowledge the right of Jews to maintain their own homeland in the pre-1967 borders of the state of Israel, with Jewish control over the Jewish section of Jerusalem (including French Hill and Mt. Scopus and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City) and the Western Wall, and unimpeded access to the cemetery on the Mount of Olives... At this point in time, the TIKKUN Community is supporting a two-state rather than a bi-national solution to the Israel-Palestinian crisis, even though some members of our community believe that such a bi-national state is the only way to achieve social justice for Palestinians."
Peter Berkowitz, JD, PhD, Associate Professor of Law at George Mason University, in a Dec. 17, 2004 Weekly Standard article titled "Rules of Disengagement," wrote:
"Israel's Arab neighbors will have to learn to stop responding to the Palestinians as people locked in an existential conflict over their right to live in their own state and instead as an actual state engaged, like many other states, in territorial dispute with one of its neighboring states. This means establishing formal relations with the new Palestinian state and offering financial assistance. At the same time, Israel's Arab neighbors will have to treat Israel not as a special source of injustice to the Arab peoples, but as a state like other states, one with disagreements with its neighbors that are susceptible to resolution through negotiation.
Similarly, it will be necessary for the entire Arab world -- reaching east in Africa to Morocco and west to the Gulf monarchies -- to assist in the birth of the Palestinian state. In addition to financial support, one big step would be to normalize relations with Israel, extend full recognition, exchange ambassadors, open up travel, and promote trade. This would defuse tension in the region, build confidence among Israelis, and provide further evidence to the Palestinians that their hopes for the future lie not in violent revolution but in peaceful cooperation... The international community must continue to invest in the Palestinian people both by offering financial assistance and by providing consultation on the enormous range of issues involved in creating the institutions of a modern nation state. But, unlike the Arafat era, this time the international community must invest responsibly and must hold the Palestinian leadership accountable.
Finally, the United States must continue to play its indispensable role. As Sharon stressed in his Herzliya speech, the Bush administration has already contributed mightily by making clear its agreement with Israel that, in reaching a two state solution, Israel cannot be expected to return precisely to the 1967 borders; Israel must be allowed to keep large settlement blocks, particularly around Jerusalem; and that there will be no right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. In addition to continuing its close consultation and cooperation with Israel, the United States should now try to explain better, most importantly to the Palestinian people, but also to the international community, that to be pro-Israel is not to be anti-Palestinian -- not only because establishing a viable Palestinian state is in Israel's strategic interest, but also because it is just."
Robert Malley, JD, PhD, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Program of the International Crisis Group, in a May 7, 2002 New York Times article titled "Rebuilding a Damaged Palestine," offered the following:
"If done right, the introduction of an international presence can benefit both sides. It can help increase security for Israelis and Palestinians, rebuild Palestinian self-government and provide Israel with assurances regarding Palestinian performance. Most important, it may begin to set in motion the process that should lead to the emergence of a viable state of Palestine living side by side with Israel."
Riyad Mansour, PhD, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, in a Jan. 3, 2007 WAFA Palestine News Agency article titled "Mansour to UNSC President: Israel's Plans to Construct New Colonies in OPT Illegal," offered the following:
"Israel's continued colonization of Palestinian land and settler colonialism is also further destroying the vision of two-States living side by side in peace and security, based on the 1967 borders."
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, in its website's Foreign Policy section, under the subheading titled "Middle East Peace Process" (accessed Feb. 26, 2009), offered the following:
"Turkey desires earnestly a just and lasting settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which lies beneath the problems in the Middle East, through mutual negotiations on the basis of a vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognized borders, and in the framework of the relevant Resolutions of the UN Security Council (242, 338, 1397, 1515), the principle of land for peace, the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative. Moreover, Turkey wishes the completion of the Middle East Peace Process through concurrent revitalization of peace talks in other tracks, such as Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon."
Marwan Muasher, PhD, former Jordanian Foreign Minister, in a Mar. 15, 2004 Woodrow Wilson International Center document titled "Challenges Facing the Arab World," wrote:
"Any effort that aims at a two-state solution, and a viable two-state solution, is an effort that Jordan will support. And any effort that moves against a two-state solution is an effort that Jordan would oppose."
Emanuele Ottolenghi, PhD, Research Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, in a Mar. 18, 2005 National Review article titled "Reform Talk Needs Action: Moving Along the Road to Peace?," wrote:
"Palestinian hopes for independence and statehood may yet be fulfilled, thanks in no small measure to the ongoing financial pledge by the international community and international commitments to a democratic Palestine. Those commitments are based on a vision of a nation that is viable economically and territorially, but also reinforces, rather than undermines, the notion of two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian, living side by side in peace and security... Palestinians are right in asking that Israel lift many security measures which hurt chances of economic recovery and that, even when necessary, are humiliating ordinary Palestinians. But the current context is not only conditioned by Israel’s presence in the territories. Violence continues to loom large and no peace can ever be achieved, unless those who oppose peace and reconciliation lay their weapons once and for all and either rest their case or learn to make it peacefully. Israel cannot be urged to exercise restraint in the face of murder, unless the PA [Palestinian Authority] is also pressured into taking action against terrorists."
Amos Oz, Full Professor of Hebrew Literature at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, in a Sep. 8, 2004 speech titled "A Message of Memory and Peace," given upon recieving the Catalonia International Prize available at Institut Europeu de la Mediterranea website, stated:
"Israel must withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories; otherwise there will be no peace. Palestinian refugees should have a safe and permanent home in the state of Palestine, not in Israel. Otherwise we will have two Palestinian states, and not even one for the Jewish people."
The Palestine Liberation Organization Negotiations Affairs Department (PLONAD), in a Feb. 3, 2002 PLONAD website section titled "Summary of Palestinian Positions," stated:
"The PLO has accepted that Israel’s 1967 Pre-Occupation borders (the 'Green Line') shall serve as the international border between the states of Palestine and Israel... As part of a viable two-state solution, all Israeli colonies [settlements] must be evacuated, including those located in Occupied East Jerusalem... All of Jerusalem (and not merely East Jerusalem) is the subject of permanent status negotiations... Palestinian refugees must be given the option to exercise their right of return (as well as receive compensation for their losses arising from their dispossession and displacement) though refugees may prefer other options... Israel owes financial compensation to Palestinians for Palestinian property stolen or destroyed by Israel. Conservative estimates of the current value of such property run well into the billions of dollars, though estimates vary based on whether non-material losses are included. In addition, Israel is obligated to compensate the Palestinian government..."
Peace Now, a peace advocacy group, in its July 8, 2003 website section titled "Peace Now Positions," stated:
"The Starting point for a permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is mutual recognition of the right of both peoples to full national life in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. In order to promote peace and reconciliation between the two peoples, Israel should adopt the following principles: The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, including the right to establish its own state alongside the State of Israel. The Green Line will constitute the guiding line for the determination of the permanent borders between the State of Israel and the Palestinian State..."
Shimon Peres, Ninth President of Israel, in a May 2, 1998 Le Monde Diplomatique article titled "Why Israel Needs a Palestinian State," wrote:
"For Israel to remain a Jewish state, both morally and demographically, it needs a Palestinian state. Today, 4.7 million Jews and 4 million Arabs live between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan. Without two separate states, a binational state will come into being, to the great frustration of the two peoples."
Pope John Paul II, PhD, 264th Pope of the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, in a Nov. 10, 2003 transcript titled "Address to a Delegation of Palestinian Christians of the Palestinian Liberation Organization," available at the Libreria Editrice Vaticana website, wrote:
"Despite the recent setbacks on the roadmap to peace and fresh outbreaks of violence and injustice, we must continue to affirm that peace is possible and that the resolution of differences can only come about through the patient dialogue and persevering commitment of people of good will on both sides. Terrorism must be condemned in all its forms, for it is not only a betrayal of our common humanity, but is absolutely incapable of laying the necessary political, moral and spiritual foundations for a people’s freedom and authentic self-determination. I once again call upon all parties to respect fully the resolutions of the United Nations and the commitments made in the acceptance of the peace process, with engagement in a common quest for reconciliation, justice and the building of a secure and harmonious coexistence in the Holy Land. I likewise voice my hope that the national [Palestinian] Constitution presently being drafted will give expression to the highest aspirations and the most cherished values of all the Palestinian people, with due recognition of all religious communities and adequate legal protection of their freedom of worship and expression."
Colin Powell, MBA, US Secretary of State at the time of the quote, in a Jan. 8, 2004 US Department of State Office of the Spokesman document titled "On-The-Record Briefing," offered the following:
"We're committed to a two-state solution. I believe that's the only solution that'll work: a state for the Palestinian people called Palestine; and a Jewish state, the state of Israel, which exists. And what we have to do is get to a table where we can negotiate the terms of existence. I don't believe that we can accept a situation that results in anything that one might characterize as apartheid or 'bantuism.' What we need right now is for the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority to get control of security forces and to use those forces and use the other tools available to him to put down terror and to put down violence. And if that happens and we see that kind of commitment, then I am confident that we can move forward on the roadmap."
Hatem Abdel Qader, Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) Jerusalem District, in a Feb. 9, 2004 bitterlemons.org interview titled "Killing the Roadmap," stated:
"Israelis must reject the imposition of any security solution to the conflict and strive towards a fair and just political one for the good of the coming generations. We both need a political resolution based on the right of Palestinians to an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem the capital of both states."
Gidon Doni Remba, President of Chicago Peace Now, in a Dec. 24, 2002 Chicago Peace Now website article titled "Yes to US Intervention, No to Imposed Solutions," wrote:
"Israelis refuse to commit national suicide and relinquish their right to a Jewish state, just as Palestinians insist on creating a Muslim, Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza, as reflected in the proposed new Palestinian constitution. The only viable road to peace in our lifetime requires mutual acceptance of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people, as Palestinian and Israeli moderates have recognized."
Yukio Satoh, President of the Japan Institute of International Affairs at Tokyo, in a May 7, 2002 UN General Assembly Emergency Special Session transcript titled "Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the Rest of the Occupied Territories," stated:
"It is an urgently required task for the international community to put an end to the vicious cycle of violence and retaliation which has been repeated since the fall of 2000, and to resume a political process which will make it possible for two states, Israel and Palestine, to coexist peacefully within secure and recognized boundaries."
Jerome Segal, PhD, MPA, Senior Research Scholar at the University of Maryland's Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, in a Feb. 7, 2006 Ha'aretz article titled "Last Chance to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," wrote:
"Though Abbas retains the will, the authority and the legitimacy to enter into final status negotiations with Israel, what likelihood is there that such negotiations could actually, and quickly, result in a comprehensive end-of-conflict agreement? Virtually no chance, unless a totally new process is adopted, a Referendum Based Peace Process (RBPP). Here is how it could work: 1) The United States (or the Quartet) would put on the table a fully detailed draft peace agreement at the very outset. 2) Israel and the PLO would then negotiate for three months to see if they can find any mutually agreeable improvements to the American draft. 3) After three months, the peace treaty, either in its original or its modified form, will be put to a referendum in both societies. Neither the PLO nor the Government of Israel would be committed in advance to supporting passage. 4) If the referenda pass in both societies, then Israel and the PLO would sign the treaty. 5) As a result of the treaty, the State of Palestine would come into existence, with the Government of Palestine replacing the Palestinian Authority. There is a good deal of polling evidence that shows that a strong majority of both the Israeli and Palestinian public want a return to final-status negotiations. Moreover, there is strong evidence that a comprehensive treaty, roughly along the lines proposed by President Clinton at the end of his term, could win the approval of both peoples."
Henry Siegman, former Senior Fellow and Director for the U.S./Middle East Project at the Council on Foreign Relations, in a Jan. 8, 2006 The Observer article titled "He Never Intended an Equitable Solution in Israel," wrote:
"What hope there is for a revival of a peace process lies not with the success of Kadima, the new centrist party established by Sharon, but with an Israeli commitment to a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza whose claims to security, viability and territorial integrity are entitled the same respect that Israel expects for its own claims."
Chaim Simons, PhD, Rabbi and author, in a Nov. 2003 document titled "'Geneva Accord' Alternative Version: Model for a Permanent Israel-Arab Agreement," available at freeman.org, wrote the following:
"Mandatory Palestine will be divided into two states to be called Palestine and Israel. Palestine will be given 77% of the land area and will be situated east of the Jordan River. i.e. the area of the country today known as Jordan. Israel will be given the remaining 23% and will be situated west of the Jordan River. i.e. the area at present under Israeli law and order, together with the whole of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip. Arabs at present living in the designated Israel will, on signing a declaration recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, be allowed to remain. Otherwise they will move to Palestine. Likewise Jews living in the designated Palestine will, on signing a declaration recognizing Palestine as an Arab state, be allowed to remain. Otherwise they will move to Israel."
Javier Solana, PhD, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), in a July 10, 2005 speech transcript titled "EUHR Solana Remarks on Meeting with Egyptian President Mubarak," available at the "European Union" section of the United Nations' website, stated:
"The Israeli disengagement from Gaza is by now imminent and, if everything goes well, should start on 17 August. Our hope is that Disengagement will take place on time, in an orderly manner and in co-ordination with the Palestinians and that it will lead to the emergence of two states -- both implementing their respective commitments under the Road Map."
Kenneth Stein, PhD, William E. Schatten Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History and Israeli Studies at Emory University, in a May 2002 Rivista Italiana Di Geopoliti article titled "American Mediation of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Positive Assessment of the April 2002 Powell Mission," wrote:
"The Palestinian quest for self-determination just like the State of Israel cannot be physically destroyed; Israel can not absorb 3 million Palestinians and still be a majority Jewish state. Separating the two communities, the partition of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean and the creation of two independent states remains as it has been for over sixty years the only viable options for a political solution."
Amir Taheri, Iranian writer and commentator on Middle East affairs, in an Apr. 1, 2006 Arab News article titled "Israel May Impose a Victor's Peace on Palestinians," offered the following:
"The next Israeli government's key task is to start by creating one of the two proposed states: The State of Israel in its definitive shape. Once that is done the creation of the second, the Palestinian one, might require the cooperation of the international community. The areas left under the Palestinian Authority, now dominated by Hamas, could revert to the UN mandate under a revised version of the rules in force in 1947. The new Israeli leadership would be wise to offer the Palestinians something that at least a substantial number of them can accept, and not a version of Bantustans [Soth African territories designated for blacks during apartheid] that few Palestinians would be prepared to swallow."
Salim Tamari, PhD, Director of the Institute of Jerusalem Studies in Jerusalem, in a Feb. 2004 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Online NewsHour show titled "Extended Interview: Salim Tamari," offered the following:
"Well, at the moment, everybody is for a Palestinian state including the most extreme elements in Israeli society. Well not the most extreme, but certainly the, the current, the bulk of the Likud government is for a state. The question is where is this state going to be. At one point they suggested Jordan to be the location of the Palestinian state. Now I think they are resigned to the state being in Palestine, but the area in Palestine where they are conceiving of this state is not viable. It's something like 42 to 48 percent of the current areas of the West Bank, which is a land locked area with no international borders and no contiguity to it. That is a recipe for disaster. It's not only a repetition of the Apartheid situation, but also it's a state which would be endemically riddled with economic disasters, with the inability to stand on its feet. So the question is not whether they support the Palestinian state or not, but the conditions under which this state is likely to prosper and therefore to be stable and be able to conclude a long term peace with the Israeli state."
Daphne Tsimhoni, PhD, Adjunct Senior Lecturer in the Department of Humanities and Arts Technion at the Israel Institute of Technology (IIT), in a Dec. 1, 2005 email to ProCon.org, wrote:
"The only solution can be a political one achieved by peace negotiations and compromise, mutual recognition and acceptance. Israel should recognize the existence of a Palestinian state and withdraw from the vast majority of its settlements in the occupied territories. Minor border alterations on the basis of land exchange by agreement can allow some Jewish settlements stay under the PA [Palestinian Authority]. At the same time the Palestinians should stop terrorist activities and convince the Israelis that they accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. They should declare their withdrawal from the right of return and accept the solution of resettlement, compensation and rehabilitation as specified in the UN decision 194 section iii. At the end of negotiations a solution can be found for Jerusalem and particularly the Old City and the Holy Places."
Alain Epp Weaver, MDiv, Representative for Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq for the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), in an Oct. 3, 2001 address to the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs titled "Israel and Palestine: Coexistence?," available at www.cceia.org, stated:
"Two clear alternatives to the Oslo framework exist: 1. Return the Palestinian/Israeli question back to the framework of international law and resolutions, a framework set aside by Oslo: a two-state solution will only be just and viable if it is grounded in international law concerning the illegality of settlements in occupied territory and in international resolutions calling for withdrawal from all occupied territory in exchange for peace... 2. Permit the eventual emergence of a bi-national state in all of Palestine/Israel. If a two-state solution, based firmly on international resolutions and law, is not implemented soon, then this is the only other alternative, apart from the horrific ones of perpetual apartheid, transfer, or genocide."
Dov Weisglass, Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in an Apr. 14, 2004 letter to then US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, available at BitterLemons.org, wrote:
"The Government of Israel extends to the Government of the United States the following assurances: a. The Israeli government remains committed to the two-state solution - Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security - as the key to peace in the Middle East. b. The Israeli government remains committed to the Roadmap as the only route to achieving the two-state solution."
Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., LLB, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, in an Aug. 27, 2007 radio interview titled "The Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, the Hamas Problem, and the Need for a New American Policy," available at the Foundation for Middle East Peace website, stated:
"These are two communities that are passionately attached to the land they both consider their home. There has been a link between the ancient kingdoms of Israel and the modern state of Israel, and the Palestinian people have lived there from time immemorial. They both have a deep sense of national identity and want states of their own where they can lead their lives, raise their families and fulfill their aspirations. They have been fighting for decades over the same land and so it is critical that this land be divided to allow each of them to have a state of their own. It’s the only way they can live in peace... By now, the outlines of a solution are well known. For 20 years the Israelis and Palestinians have been talking to each other after the previous 50 years of conflict and violence. Out of that dialogue, beginning in the late ‘70s, came a series of negotiations, official and unofficial. These negotiations produced the outlines of a solution which would divide the former British mandate of Palestine into two states: A state of Israel along the lines in which it was originally created in 1948, and a Palestinian state in that area that was occupied by the Israeli forces in the Six Day War of June 1967. Specifically, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza would comprise the Palestinian state. Israel would preserve its state in its original form, as it was between 1948 and 1967."
Fareed Zakaria, PhD, Editor of Newsweek International, in an Apr. 15, 2001 Newsweek article titled "Secretary of State Sharon," wrote:
"Bush has called for a solution that creates a Palestinian state that, along with Israel, has secure borders. Like every president before him, he has criticized the building and expansion of settlements. He has also asked that Israel ease up on checkpoints and searches that humiliate and enrage Palestinians. These goals are not simply in America's best interest, they are also in Israel's. Israel cannot survive as a democracy without peace with the Palestinians."
The United States Department of State, in its website section titled "Mission Statement" (accessed Oct. 22, 2007), offered the following:
"The United States is committed to achieving the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace, security, and dignity. We seek to end terrorism and achieve a permanent reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The United States, in consultation with the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations, and in partnership with the Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab governments, will work to promote a lasting peace."
Abdullah bin Al Hussein II, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in a Feb. 22, 2005 Le Monde op-ed article titled "Hope of Peace in the Middle East," wrote the following:
"The roadmap [two-state solution proposed by the Quartet: European Union, United Nations, United States, and Russia] provides for a comprehensive, two-state solution, the only kind of peace that can endure: a sovereign, democratic and viable Palestine; security guarantees for Israel; and a process that leads to a comprehensive settlement that addresses the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. The roadmap provides for justice and security, bringing together the entire region, from Morocco to Yemen, in a healing process of reconciliation and hope. We must now work together to deliver upon that promise."
Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman, in a transcript of an Oct. 1, 2003 statement to the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, available at the United Nations website, said:
"On behalf of the Government of the Sultanate of Oman... Israel must respond to the demands of the International Community and respect international resolutions. It should positively respond to the international efforts aimed at the implementation of the Road Map that gives international guarantees to both parties in order to establish peace based on the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state on all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967. Such a solution would give States of the Middle East a historical chance to build a new Middle East."
Naim Ateek, PhD, Director of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem, in his organization's May 26, 2003 "Position on Road Map," available at the Coalition for Responsible Peace in the Middle East website, offered the following:
"Sabeel's position is to welcome the Road Map as offered by the Quartet for implementation... If the Palestinians are assured that by 2005 the Road Map, in spite of some meanderings, will lead to a viable, democratic, independent, and sovereign Palestine state on all the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, and resolve the issues of Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements in accordance with UN resolutions, most Palestinians would enthusiastically support it. It is only then that hope will replace the present apathy and despair, and end the cycle of violence, because the prospect of a just peace will begin to loom in the horizon and the dawn of a new and brighter day for all the people of our land will be anticipated. It is only then that the Road Map would have reached its true destination. It would be the road that leads to life and freedom."
Daniel Ayalon, MBA, former Ambassador of Israel to the United States, in a Jan. 29, 2004 Washington Times article titled "Finding Direction," offered the following:
"The road map unambiguously defines the actions that Palestinians must take in order for them to receive political gains. Palestinians must make a determined and unconditional effort to end terrorism against Israel. They must collect illegal weapons and stop smuggling them, arrest terrorists and dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism. They must also end hatred and incitement in their official media and in their educational system. A peaceful future cannot develop from the poisonous foundations that exist in current Palestinian society. Israelis understand that to secure a genuine peace with Palestinians, we will have to make many painful sacrifices, including giving up parts of our historic homeland and generations of vibrant communities will have to be relocated. The government of Israel has been preparing and educating its citizens for such difficult decisions. We are ready to make the sacrifices needed for peace. However, we can't make peace a reality without a true commitment from Palestinians, whose leaders have done nothing to prepare their population for concessions on their part. For over 50 years, we have searched for a peace partner. The time for inaction and excuses has passed. Palestinians no longer have any excuses. They must make the strategic choice for peace backed by genuine actions on the ground and fulfill their obligations according to the road map — the best way forward for both peoples."
Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, Foreign Minister of Oman, in a transcript of an Oct. 1, 2003 statement to the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, available at the United Nations website, said:
"Israel must respond to the demands of the International Community and respect international resolutions. It should positively respond to the international efforts aimed at the implementation of the Road Map that gives international guarantees to both parties in order to establish peace based on the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state on all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967."
Igor Ivanov, former Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a July 10, 2003 Pravda article titled "Russian Foreign Minister Suggests Making Road Map Plan Binding for Israel and Palestine," offered the following:
"Russia appeals once again to all participants of the conflict to return to a political dialogue in the context of the Road Map... We also believe it necessary that the UN Security Council adopts the Road Map as its mandatory plan of actions... All these measures are aimed at one goal - to stop the present spiral of violence and to return the political solution of the situation in the Middle East."
Ahmed Qurei, former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, in a transcript of a May 15, 2004 conference in Jordan titled "Powell Meets with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Qurei," available at the America.gov website, stated:
"We discussed with Mr. Powell about the Roadmap [a plan to reach a two-state solution proposed by the Quartet: European Union, United Nations, United States, and Russia] and the implementation of the Roadmap, hoping that it will be from now up to the end of 2005. We have enough time to finish the negotiations and to have a Palestinian state according to President Bush’s vision, which means that a Palestinian state in 2005 – and according to the Roadmap, also, that the Palestinian state will be in 2005. I think, I believe, that we still have the time, with the support of the United States, with the support of President Bush, with the support of the Quartet, I believe that we can achieve this goal."
Dennis Ross, PhD, Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in a Feb. 10, 2005 transcript of a testimony before the House Committee on International Relations titled "The Way Forward in the Middle East Peace Process," stated:
"The Roadmap to Peace [a plan to reach a two-state solution proposed by the Quartet: European Union, United Nations, United States, and Russia] provides a three phased approach to achieving an independent, viable, and democratic Palestinian state coexisting in peace and security with the Jewish State of Israel."
Ephraim Sneh, MD, Member of the Israeli Knesset at the time of the quote, in a May 2, 2003 New York Times article titled "A Little Bit of a Peace Plan," offered the following:
"The plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace, known as the road map, cannot be allowed to fail. The alternatives are too frightening. Failure would most likely lead to the collapse of the cabinet of Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian prime minister, giving Hamas the upper hand on the Palestinian street. As a result, those in Israel who have claimed that there are no moderate Palestinians with whom to negotiate will be vindicated."
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), in a 2004 document titled "Key Foreign Policy Issues: Jordan and The Middle East Peace Process," from the Jordanian MFA website, presented the following:
"Jordan insists on the complete application of this Roadmap to become the basis of a framework for Middle East Peace. It is essential that all parties concerned respect their commitments with regard to the Roadmap with no amendments until the end of Israeli occupation and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in 2005. Jordan supports the Geneva Accord effort, and regards it as complimentary to the roadmap and not as an alternative to it."
Francis Boyle, PhD, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, in a Mar. 31, 2002 Counterpunch article titled "The Big Lie," wrote:
"First: We must immediately move for the de facto suspension of Israel throughout the entirely of the United Nations system... Second: Any further negotiation with Israel must be conducted on the basis of Resolution 181 (II) [1947 Partition Plan] and the borders it specifies; Resolution 194 (III) [Right of Return]... Third: We must abandon the fiction and the fraud that the United States government is an 'honest broker' in the Middle East... Fourth: We must move to have the U.N. General Assembly adopt comprehensive economic, diplomatic, and travel sanctions against Israel... Fifth: The Provisional Government of the State of Palestine must sue Israel before the International Court of Justice in the Hague for inflicting acts of genocide against the Palestinian People... Sixth: We must pressure the Member States of the U.N. General Assembly to found an Internatioanl Criminal Tribunal for Palestine (ICTP) in order to prosecute Israeli war criminals... Seventh: Concerned citizens and governments all over the world must organize a comprehensive campaign of economic disinvestment and divestment from Israel..."
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), in a document titled "Peace Process" from the Palestinian MFA website (accessed Jan. 11, 2005), stated:
"A complete Israeli withdrawal to the border of 1967 in referent to the United Nations Security Counsel resolution 242 and the principle of land for peace. Termination, by Israel, the occupying power, of the illegal annexation of the occupied city of Jerusalem (alquds) in referent to the United Nations Security Counsel Resolution 478 of 1980, and a comprehensive withdrawal from the city in order to become fully under full and complete jurisdiction of the Palestinian state. To dismantle settlement infrastructure in referent to the United Nations Security Counsel Resolution 465 on 1980 and all relevant UN Resolutions. Stressing on the Rights of the Palestinian refugees in referent to the resolution 194 which guaranteed their right to return to their homes and to compensation (the right of return). The recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination under the relevant UN Resolutions, especially the Security Council Resolution 1397, and to restore its complete sovereignty on its territory of the West Bank including Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip."
Marlene Nadle, independent journalist and Associate of the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies at the New School University, in a July/Aug. 2005 article titled "Final Negotiations Now," posted on the website of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, offered the following:
"It is essential that the peace camp persuade Bush that backing an interim solution instead of final-status negotiations for a Palestinian state is a mistake that will escalate terrorism. To be effective in opposing an interim semi-state, they can't fall for another variation of the stalling strategy that says confidence-building measures are needed before negotiations are possible... To end the conflict, people must insist on final -status negotiations, or, at least, pressure Bush to set a time frame for those talks."
Global Exchange, a human rights advocacy organization, in its Oct. 17, 2008 website presentation titled "Palestine Human Rights Campaign," offered the following:
"Global Exchange believes that without fundamental change in the U.S. policy towards the Middle East, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular, peace will be unattainable. Our Palestine Human Rights Program supports: A balanced U.S. policy that seeks to end Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories captured in 1967. International recognition and backing for a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, with full trade, diplomatic, and territorial rights guaranteed under international law. A just and durable resolution of Palestinian refugee claims based on existing UN Security Council resolutions. Full legal, political, and civil rights for Palestinians living within the borders of Israel."
James J. Zogby, PhD, Founder and President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), in a June 6, 2005 Washington Watch article titled "Abu Mazen Is Right: Freedom, Too, Is Needed," concluded:
"If President Bush's vision of two democratic states living side-by-side is to be realized, it will take more than offers of limited economic assistance to the Palestinians and timid reminders to the Israelis of their 'Road Map' obligations. If the US were to become a partner in the Palestinian quest for empowerment and freedom, as it is a partner in the Israeli quest for security and recognition, it could help to transform Israeli behavior, inspire Palestinian hope and bring about the change needed to foster democracy and contribute to an end to violence."
Steven Salaita, PhD, Assistant Professor of American and Ethnic American Literatures at Virginia Tech University, in an Aug. 14, 2001 Houston Chronicle article titled "Let Americans Learn Palestinian Side of the Story," offered the following:
"Israel repeatedly has been ordered by the United Nations to withdraw from the territories. An endless stream of Security Council resolutions since 1967 has identified Israel's illegal occupation as the primary source of conflict, and yet the United States has stood alone with Israel each time in blocking the implementation of any solution based on international stipulations to which both Israel and the United States are a party."
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), in its website section titled "About" (accessed Jan. 15, 2007), stated:
"...[T]hat human rights could be sacrificed in the name of political expediency, was a fatal flaw of the Oslo accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)... the Oslo accords failed to address the essential elements of the Palestinian question: the right to self-determination, the right to an independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the removal of Israeli settlements from the occupied Palestinian territories."
Doug Bandow, JD, Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance, in an American Conservative, Nov. 3, 2003 article titled "Israel’s Democracy Dilemma: West Bank Settlements Force an Existential Question," wrote:
"In principle, separation seems the best answer. Whatever the theoretical long-term value of diverse peoples living together in harmony, it’s not going to happen soon in the Mideast. Daily contact between Israelis and Palestinians seems only to provide further opportunities for the former to oppress the latter and the latter to murder the former. Better to stop the killing than foolishly to hold onto some hopeless multicultural ideal... The most obvious solution is... separation -— and with it the dismantling of Israeli settlements that dot Gaza and the West Bank. And as long as Washington backs Israel financially and politically, the future of the settlements is America’s business."
Joseph Yackley, MA, Robert Bosch Foundation Fellow, in a May 10, 2002 Foreign Policy in Focus article titled "Aiding the War Effort," concluded:
"The U.S. must recognize that Israeli security and Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive, but mutually dependent. Just as the Palestinians will not be granted their rights until Israel’s legitimate security needs are recognized, Israel will not be secure until the Palestinians are granted their legitimate rights. The U.S. should maintain its moral and strategic commitment to Israel to ensure its survival and its legitimate strategic interests in defending its internationally recognized borders. At the same time, however, the U.S. must also be willing to apply pressure whenever the Israeli government refuses to make the necessary compromises for peace, which requires withdrawal from the occupied territories, removing colonists from the illegal settlements, sharing Jerusalem, and pursuing a just resolution for Palestinian refugees. This would require an immediate suspension of all military assistance to Israel as long as the Israeli government continues to engage in violations of international human rights standards and international law."
Hadassah, Women's Zionist Organization of America, in its website section titled "Sharon and Abbas Hold Summit in Jerusalem Hot Topics, Israeli-Palestinian Relationship" (accessed Sep. 1, 2005), presented the following:
"By withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, Israel seeks to ensure a democratic Jewish state with secure borders and a demographic majority... Peace will ultimately depend on whether or not the Palestinian Authority fulfills its obligations by controlling terror organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Israel’s upcoming disengagement from Gaza is an opportunity to re-invigorate the peace process and to create a precedent for long-lasting positive changes in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. Following a successful disengagement, the parties should proceed to the next step in the road map."
Ramzy Baroud, MA, Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle, in an Aug. 18 - 24, 2005 Al-Ahram Weekly article titled "What the Disengagement Isn't," wrote the following:
"Only within the framework of a complete military withdrawal from Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Territories, in accordance with international law and based on mutual agreements by both parties, shall a real solution evolve. Other than that, it’s politics as usual."
Natan Sharansky, former Israeli Knesset Member, in a Winter 2005 Middle East Quarterly article titled "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and Democracy," wrote:
"If given the opportunity, the Palestinians can progress toward democracy. They have a strong middle class. They have special business opportunities in the free world. Palestinians are adroit observers of Israel and understand the functioning of democracy. The Palestinian diaspora is well educated. All of these factors provide hope for a speedier transition... Israel has a special interest in Palestinian democracy because only with democratic development among Palestinians and in the Arab world will Israel enjoy peace and stability... If a Palestinian democracy developed, then a Palestinian state would not be dangerous. As I said many years ago, it is very important that the depth of our concessions match the depth of democracy on the other side."
Alfred Stepan, PhD, Wallace S. Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University, in an Apr. 19, 2005 Taipei Times article titled "Palestine Holds the Key to a True Democracy in the Arab World," offered the following:
"A symmetrical peace between Israel and Palestine would, by contrast, incite much less Islamic resistance. A symmetrical peace agreement might also contribute to a new dynamic in Jordan and Egypt, namely re-liberalization of society. Palestine and its immediate neighbors have their best opportunity in thirty years to produce democratic states. They can do so if they seize the current opening, and if the international community intensifies its support for an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Barry Rubin, PhD, Director of the Global Research for International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, in a Mar. 1, 2005 GLORIA article titled "The PA's Test," wrote:
"If there is going to be any hope of peace, an end to Israel's military presence, and a Palestinian state, this will only come about if the new Palestinian leadership team implements what amounts to a truly moderate revolution among its own people. But this requires an end of the double game so long pursued by the Palestinian movement and raised to the heights of an art form by Arafat."
Haig Khatchadourian, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, in his 2000 book titled The Quest for Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians, wrote:
"From the Palestinian and my own personal point of view, East Jerusalem ought to become part - indeed, the capital- of the Palestinian state... However, recognizing Israel's insistence that East Jerusalem is 'nonnegotiable,' I endorsed in 1970 the 1947 UN General Assembly's resolution to internationalize it. That - and Israel's insistence that Jerusalem is eternally Israeli - remains the Israelis' unshakable position. Nevertheless, it is my hope that Israel may eventually agree to relinquishing East Jerusalem to Palestinian rule, provided that (a) a political and administrative formula can be worked out whereby Jerusalem would remain undivided; so that, among other things, the city would remain open to all religions, but (b) also allow East Jerusalem to become the capital of the Palestinian state; in the same way that West Jerusalem is Israel's capital."
William J. Bennet, PhD, JD, national radio show host, in a July 22, 2003 National Review article titled "Moral Clarity and the Middle East," wrote:
"First...we should not put any pressure on Israel (a democracy) that it believes it cannot handle in negotiating with those who show very little respect for democracy. Second, we should require a signed affidavit — in English and Arabic — from Yasser Arafat declaring that foreign policy, peace negotiations, and security are under the sole bailiwick of the prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas. Third, Abbas needs to make guarantees to the settlers in what will become the Palestinian state: At a minimum, they should be given the choice of where they want to vote — in Israel or in Palestine. Arabs in Israel-proper, after all, vote for and serve in the Israeli parliament. Fourth, Abbas needs to cleanse all official maps, and all state-sponsored schoolbooks, of the lie that his state, proposed or otherwise, encompasses Israel in toto... Finally, the United States has a moral and legal obligation to maintain its embassy and ambassador in Jerusalem. That sentence comes from the 2000 Republican-party platform. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."
Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Administration and Policy for Jewish Voice for Peace, in a Nov. 10, 2003 ZNet article titled "An Accord No One Is Hearing," offered the following:
"Despite the questionable prospects for Palestinian acceptance of the agreement regarding the refugees, and the lack of a reconciliation process, the Geneva Accords [negotiations by former Israeli and Palestinian officials to reach a two-state solution] are promising, in that (for all their flaws) they move closer to a just solution than any previous agreements. [W]e can take hope in the accords’ reminder that Sharon and Hamas are not the sum total of Israel and Palestine. There remain those who continue to work for peace, and — if the rest of the world is willing to embrace their efforts — a sea change in the Middle East remains possible."
Avi Shlaim, PhD, Fellow of St Antony's College and Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford University, in an Apr. 29, 2004 Die Weltwoche article titled "Ariel Sharon’s War Against the Palestinians," offered the following:
"Yasser Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin signed a 'peace agreement' between Palestine and Israel in Geneva on 1 December 2003 amid great media and political fanfare. The Geneva Accord is a 50-page document that deals in detail with all aspects of the dispute... The Geneva Accord demonstrated not only that there was a significant body of moderate Palestinians who were prepared to negotiate with Israel a final settlement to the conflict but that they had already done most of the ground work."
Dov Waxman, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Baruch College of the City University of New York, in an Apr. 9, 2008 email response to ProCon.org, wrote:
"I believe that both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have a right to exercise national self-determination, and hence a solution to their long conflict must be based upon respect for these rights. A two-state solution involving the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel has always been and remains to this day the only realistic means of satisfying the legitimate national aspirations of both peoples. Of the many proposed plans for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the 2003 Geneva Accord is, in my opinion, the best available so far."
Michael Galchinsky, PhD, Associate Professor of English and Director of the Program in Jewish Studies at Georgia State University, in an Apr. 17, 2007 email to ProCon.org, wrote:
"I support the program of action spelled out in the Taba negotiation [on Jan. 2001 regarding Palestinian refugees, borders, security and the future of Jerusalem]. Negotiations to that end should take place within a framework in which are recognized both Israel's right to peace, security, and territorial integrity, and the Palestinians' right to self-determination, peace, and security. Terrorism is outrageous by whomever it is practiced, and for whatever reason."
Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, in a Mar. 28, 2002 CNN.com article titled "Arab Summit Adopts Saudi Peace Initiative," offered the following:
"This [2002 Arab Peace Initiative] is the way toward security ... Israel can't keep the land and want security at the same time. It has to withdraw and give the Palestinian [sic] their rights. If Israel does that, the Arab states will put an end to the state of war. That will give Israel its security."
Jean Obeid, Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a transcript of a Sep. 24, 2003 statement in the 58th session of the UN General Assembly, available at the United Nations website, proclaimed:
"It has become certain to everyone, except to the arrogant in Israel, that there can be no security without a political solution, and no partial, peaceful, political solution without the comprehensive peace that embodies the spirit of the  Madrid Conference and the integrated  Arab peace initiative of the Arab Summit in Beirut. Such a solution is based on the relevant international resolutions which return to Lebanon the remaining territory still under Israeli occupation, including Shebaa Farms; which return to Syria its territory up to the line of 4 June 1967; and which allow the Palestinian refugees to exercise their legal, humanitarian, and moral right of return to their homeland. Such a process should ensure the establishment of a sovereign, independent, stable, and viable Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital."
Hassan Tahsin, Middle East columnist, in an Apr. 1, 2005 Arab News article titled "Reaffirming Support to Arab Peace Initiative," wrote:
"The Arab initiative has shown that Arabs, unlike Israel, want peace and that contrary to what is claimed by Israel, the Arab countries do not object to the normalization of relations with the Jewish state provided the Palestinians’ legitimate rights are honored. These include resolving all pending issues including Jerusalem, Jewish settlements, the return of the refugees, Palestinian right to water resources and the security arrangements."
Dore Gold, PhD, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in a June 15-July 1, 2003 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs article titled "Defensible Borders for Israel," offered the following:
"Before Israel proceeds with the roadmap, it would be appropriate to reach new U.S.-Israeli understandings about the future direction of the peace process. In the short term, Israel's construction of the separation fence should not become an issue in U.S.-Israel relations. The fence is a military barrier; Israel's right to make its own judgment about how best to protect its security needs should be respected. Israel will still retain settlements and conduct military operations on both sides of the fence. Nonetheless, the separation fence could evolve over time into a permanent political border, if the Palestinians fail to seriously enter into a negotiating process with Israel. But the fence does not necessarily have to become a final border should the parties agree to other boundaries. In the longer term, Israel's right to defensible borders ought to be acknowledged by the Bush administration. Should the roadmap to a Palestinian state be implemented, then an appropriate quid pro quo for the establishment of a Palestinian state (with certain security restrictions) would be defensible borders for Israel. The details of what constitutes those defensible borders should be worked out by the Bush administration and the Sharon government, before the roadmap proceeds to its next stage."
Joe Walsh, MPP, former US Representative (R-IL), wrote in his May 3, 2012 article "Myth of a Two-State Solution" in the Washington Times:
"It has been 64 years since the United Nations General Assembly approved the Partition Plan for Palestine and the struggle to implement a 'two-state solution' began. Today, we are no closer to that end. That reminds me of the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By that definition, everyone who continues to cling to the delusion of a two-state solution is insane. There is no such thing as a two-state solution. It cannot work, it has not worked, and it will not work...
The two-state solution can never work when one of the domains, the Palestinian state, does not even acknowledge the other state’s (Israel‘s) right to exist and has as its entire purpose in life wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Never will peace come when one side possesses such hate and routinely expresses that hate through violence and blood. It is time to let go of the two-state-solution insanity..."
Morton A. Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America, said in his Dec. 26, 2007 speech at the ZOA's annual Brandeis Award dinner, available on youtube.com under the title "ZOA's Mort Klein Blasts Two-State Solution on Shalom TV":
"What is this two-state solution? You understand by using that phrase we all intuitively understand that the Arabs refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state. That's why we call it a two-state solution. Because really it's a 23rd Arab state solution. But in fact the Arab world and the Palestinian Authority doesn't accept Israel's right to exist. They haven't since it began, they haven't since Oslo, they don't to this very day. So we must be sure that a terrorist state doesn't end up on Israel's longest border. Has any population ever been less suited for statehood? The Palestinian-Arab culture is drenched in violence and murder and hatred. God forbid such a state comes into reality."
Khalaf Al-Habtoor, former Member of the United Arab Emirates' Federal National Council and Chairman of Al Habtoor Group, in a June 2001 Al Shindagah Online article titled "A One State Solution – The Only Way To Achieve Lasting Peace," stated the following:
"A two state solution that separates Israelis and Palestinians cannot work. What is needed is a country where the two peoples can live together without conflict... Unfortunately the Palestinian goal of self-determination as a separate state or the idea of ejecting the 4.5 million Jews from Palestine is as unworkable as Israel’s belief in the two-state solution. It too ignores the reality on the ground: Arab and Jew are inextricably mixed throughout Palestine living in the same streets, towns and cities and relying on each other in many different ways."
John Spritzler, ScD, research scientist, in an Aug. 2002 NewDemocracyWorld.org article titled "Should There Be a Jewish State?," offered the following:
"The very concept of ethnically pure states is divisive and destined to stoke conflict. The so-called 'two state solution' in the Middle East — establishing a Palestinian state to counter the Jewish state — is a conceptual and political trap that prevents Arab and Jewish working people from uniting around their common interests and values. The situation in the Middle East cannot be solved within this framework; it leads nowhere except to more destruction and hate and more elite control. The solution is not to establish another ethnic state but to disestablish the ones that exist now. Israel, as well as states that are just for Muslims or any other ethnic group, must cease to exist as states based on apartheid and ethnic domination. They must be replaced by secular democracies with equal rights for all, regardless of their ethnic background, and with equal tolerance for all religions."
Khaled Abu Toameh, West Bank and Gaza correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, in a Feb. 27, 2007 Daily Texan article titled "Arab Journalist Talks About Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," was quoted as follows:
"A two-state system is great, but it's not going to work. Gaza and West Bank are too far separated geographically, politically and culturally to work. And instead of focusing on the ideal promotion of love and harmony in the area, we need to look at reducing violence and friction, because the divisions are too wide."
Charley Reese, syndicated columnist, in a May 12, 2007 AntiWar.com section titled "One Man, One Vote," wrote:
"Palestinians should give up the idea of a two-state solution. It is as plain as a hippopotamus at a tea party that the only kind of state the Israelis will give them, if at all, is a politically and economically unviable collection of tiny enclaves separated by Israeli territory. Instead, Palestinians should demand a unified Palestine, with one-man, one-vote democratic government and equal rights for all... The rallying cry for Palestinians should become one Palestine, equal rights for all and one man, one vote. They have lived under Israeli occupation for 40 years, and it is time for that to end."
Moshe Yaalon, Lieutenant-General and former Chief-of-Staff of the Israel Defense Force, in a May 3, 2005 article titled "The Bogyman" by Israeli journalist Uri Avnery, posted on Pakistan's Daily Times, offered the following:
"The paradigm of the Two States will not bring about stability. No!... (The Two-State solution) is not relevant. Not relevant... (The Palestinian state) will undermine the State of Israel. From there, the confrontation will go on. The State of Israel is ready to give the Palestinians an independent Palestinian state, but the Palestinians are not ready to give us an independent Jewish state... Every agreement you make will be the starting point of the next irredenta. The next conflict. The next war. The establishment of a Palestinian state will lead at some stage to war. Such a war can be dangerous to the State of Israel. The idea that it is possible to set up a Palestinian state by 2008 and to achieve stability is disconnected from reality and dangerous... Bush's vision is disconnected from reality."
The BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, in the article "A Two-State Solution and Palestinian Refugee Rights, Clarifying Principles," on its website (accessed Dec. 5, 2003) stated:
"Proposals for a Palestinian state to be established alongside a 'Jewish state' support the discriminatory practices applied by Israel against its non-Jewish, i.e. mainly Palestinian, citizens and residents since 1948. Also the formula 'a Palestinian state for Palestinians and Israeli for Israelis' is misleading, because it suggests that there is an Israeli nationality, while in fact Israel continues to define its national character as Jewish and not Israeli."
Ali Abunimah, Co-Founder of The Electronic Intifada, in an Oct. 28, 2003 Daily Star article titled "Geneva: Different Deal, Same Mistakes," wrote:
"If the Geneva authors were serious about a two-state solution, they would recognize that if it still has a remote chance, that can only be if Israel were at a minimum willing to withdraw every soldier and settler, without exception, behind the lines of June 4, 1967, including in Jerusalem, and allow the Palestinians to establish a state no less independent and sovereign than Israel.
As the Geneva document demonstrates, not even Israel's most 'dovish' figures are willing to contemplate that. So instead, they push a hopeless and unjust formula, claiming that this is the 'only alternative' to the bloodthirsty way of Sharon, and pretend that the Palestinian people have agreed to it."