Hotovely spars with Meridor on one- vs. two-state solution

Efforts to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians have resulted in a campaign of delegitimization against Israel, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely says at the Herzliya Conference.

Hotovely debated with former justice minister Dan Meridor on whether Israel should seek a one-state or a two-state solution.

“There is a vision that there should be a separation between the two peoples for coexistence,” Hotovely says. “When that didn’t succeed, they promised us that the aim of this separation would be an umbrella of legitimization.

“Then they said the partition and separation would be something that could get us by with the other nations,” she continues. “Now, in 2015, an entire generation asked and demanded peace and what did it get? Delegitimization.”

The more Israel offered the Palestinians, adds the deputy minister, the further they ran away, until finally taking the political direction of seeking unilateral recognition at the UN.

“The problem is not one state but the idea of two states, and our thoughts have been frozen on this issue,” she goes on.

Meridor counters, saying that a one-state solution with equal voting rights for the Palestinians would jeopardize the future of Zionism.

“A binational state or two states, there is no third option,” he says, suggesting that Israel could not remain a Jewish state under a one-state solution.

However, he agreed that even a two-state solution would not automatically mean the end of the conflict with the Palestinians.

“I agree that today there is no peace agreement, because the Palestinians do not want one,” he continues. “Two-state solution, yes, but the end of the conflict, I don’t know. The PLO was formed because of 1948, not 1967.

“You can’t solve the conflict, but you can turn Zionism into a just movement,” he concludes.